Augustine on Peter and the Rock issue of the Papacy claims

• Augustine

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same:

"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 has 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 more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

 [See discussion below on the Latin word, "Retractationes", which is more accurately translated as something like "Review and Corrections" or "Corrections" or "Reconsiderations".]

Augustine held the Roman church and its bishop in high regard, but he had a non-papal view of church government. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno comments:

"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)

From Jason Engwer's "Catholic, but not Roman Catholic" series, preserved by "Peace by Jesus" at http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_vs_papacy.html#Augustine

Addendum: (July 2, 2016)

Scott Windsor pointed out about the Latin word "Retractationes", that it does not mean "Retractions", but more like "Review and Correct":  

From the combox:

Scott,
Thanks for your comments. I take your word for it on the Latin word, as I looked around some to confirm it; and as far as I can tell, you are correct. It seems the Latin means more like "Review and Correct"

Thanks for the link, and I will use some of that from William Jurgens, unless someone else comes along and convinces me that this is not accurate. It seems accurate to me.

Augustine wrote The Retractationes (also known as Retractationum) between 426-427.

His purpose was to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.

As the patristic scholar, William A. Jurgens, explains,

English-speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of Retractationes is Reconsiderations, Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings. He had originally intended to include in his review his books, letters, and sermons. But when he had completed the review of his books in 426 or 427, he was persuaded to publish the whole work as it then stood. (The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979] 3:163)

Dr. White's article that deals with the issue you raised. (if that is what you meant by your link - the link is different now. see below)

Did he use the words "Rome has spoken?" No, but he did say Rome responded (sent rescripts) and then stated "causa finita est" (the cause is ended, or the case is closed). He obviously accepted the decision made by the pope.  (Scott Windsor, Sr.)

Except in Augustine's time, he would not have used "Pope" in the sense of jurisdictional authority - that claim comes much later. As far as I know, all presbyters/bishops / ministers (in other areas around the Christian world in the early centuries, not just the bishop of Rome.)  were called "papa" or "father", meaning "spiritual father", as in 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2, 1:18, etc.

Dr. White's relevant section of that excellent article: ( Also Linked below) 

The final words of the sermon, then, in which we find the key phrase (placed in bold), are in reference to this heresy, this error (Pelagianism), and its denial of grace. I simply point out that throughout the sermon you have had one source of authority cited over and over again: Holy Scripture. No quotations of Popes or prelates, just Scripture. With this in mind, we come to the actual passage:
10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. “They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” What is, “not according to knowledge”? “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
It is a measure of the utter desperation of the Roman position to have to make reference to such things, in our opinion. The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustine’s position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors.
This then is the context and content of Sermon 131 of Augustine (which is, btw, Sermon 81 in the Eerdman’s set, pp. 501-504 of volume VI for those who wish to read the entirety of the work). It is now painfully obvious that to place the words “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” in quotation marks and attribute them to Augustine in the context of Papal Infallibility is simply inexcusable. But, there is more to the situation than that. For history shows us that Augustine would never have uttered such words in the context Keating alleges. How he responded when Zosimus became bishop of Rome and attacked the North African churches for condemning Pelagius proves, to any person even semi-desirous of fairly dealing with Augustine’s position, that Augustine did not view the bishop of Rome as the infallible leader of the Christian Church. But to appreciate fully the depth of the error of Roman Catholic controversialists at this point, we must take a few moments to study the history.  (James White, "Catholic Legends and How they Get Started", see link below.)

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2000/04/11/catholic-legends-get-started-example/

Jerome On the Word "Pope" and the Equality of Bishops...According to Luther

In 1538 Luther republished Letter 146 of Jerome (to Evagrius) along with a preface. This is found in the recent volume of Luther's Works (60). In this letter, Jerome argues "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. In the early church it wasn't the case that bishops held more power than presbyters. The editors of LW point out, "The emergence of a distinction of superiority of bishops over presbyters was not scriptural, but rather the product of tradition, arising, as Jerome argues, to remedy schism and to provide order in the church" (p. 203).

Luther was fond of this letter in his battle against the papacy because Jerome also notes the equality of bishops, as opposed to Rome claiming her bishop is superior and is so by divine right. In his preface to Jerome's letter, Luther states:

Rather, all bishops were equal among themselves. And again, the bishops themselves were the same as presbyters. Indeed [Jerome] says that the bishop of Gubbio, a small town not far from Rome, is equal to the bishop of Rome himself. Oh, how great a heretic he would be, if this holy man were alive today! It is amazing that thousands do not condemn him to the lowest hell, together with all his writings! (p. 206).

Then Luther comments on the word "pope"-

And the word "pope" was the common title of bishops. Thus St. Jerome calls St. Augustine "most holy pope."* And they called Cyprian "pope in the Church of Carthage."** Hence it is evident that the entire papal hierarchy is a matter of the doctrines of men [Matt. 15:9], or, more correctly, of demons [1 Tim. 4:1], introduced through lying hypocrites. "All are equal in merit and priesthood," says Jerome. "It is the power of riches and the lowliness of poverty that make a bishop either higher or lower" (p. 206).

*Jerome, Epistolae 102, 103, 105, 112, 115, 134, 141 and 142 to Augustine (PL 22:830, 831, 834, 916, 935, 1161, 1179, 1180; CSEL 56:261-262, 290). In the early church "pope" was used as a title of respect that could be given to any bishop; only later did it become a title exclusive to the bishop of Rome
**For Cyprian addressed as "pope," see the letter to him from the Roman church, Epistola 30 (PL 4:303; ANF 5:308); cf. Epistola 2 (PL 4:224; ANF 5:280); Epistola 16 (PL 4:269; ANF 5:296).

Luther appears to be quoting the following from Jerome:

It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

Besides this text, Luther also appealed to Jerome's Commentary on the epistle to Titus 1:5, 6, 7
Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum), Titus 1:7 (MPL 26, 562): “The presbyter is the same as the bishop.… the bishops should have known that they were greater according to custom rather than according to the truth of the Lord’s ordinance.” Luther used this very thing in the Leipzig debate against Eck, as described by  W.H.T. Dau :

[Eck's] remark that at Rome and at the Seat of Peter originated sacerdotal unity, I grant quite freely, with reference to the Western Church. But in reality the Roman Church sprang from the Church at Jerusalem, and this latter is properly the mother of all churches. But the inference which he draws is worthless: since sacerdotal unity has its origin in the Roman Church, therefore that Church is the head and first mistress over all; with his logic he might establish beyond question that Jerusalem is the head and lord over all churches. His last authority, Jerome, even if he were altogether reliable, has not been correctly quoted by our excellent Doctor; he intends to prove that the monarchical power of the Roman Church exists by divine right and has been instituted by Christ. Jerome's words do not say this. His remark: "There would be as many schisms in the Church as there are bishops, unless some extraordinary power eminent over all others were given him," means: Let us assume that this could be done by human, right, all the rest of the believers giving their consent. For I myself do not deny that if the believers throughout the world were to agree, on a first and supreme pontiff at Rome, Paris, Magdeburg, or anywhere else, this person ought to be regarded as the highest monarch out of respect for the entire Church of believers who are thus agreed. But this has never happened, nor is it happening now, nor will it ever happen; for down to our times the Greek Church has given no such consent, and yet has not been regarded as heretical. That this is Jerome's meaning I prove from his epistle to Evagrius, where he says: "Wherever there may be a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Thanae, his worth and episcopal office is the same. The influence of wealth and the humiliation of poverty may make one sublime, the other lowly; nevertheless all are successors of the apostles." We find the epistle cited in Decretals that are not worthless, in the 93d distinction. In his commentary on Titus the same author says: "The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and ere by the devil's prompting there came to be competition in religious affairs and people were saying, 'I am of Paul, I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by a joint council of the presbyters. Afterwards, when each presbyter thought that those who had been baptized by him belonged to him, the rule was made for the whole circuit that one presbyter should be chosen to be above the rest." And citing Scripture-proof, he says toward the end: "Accordingly, as the presbyters knew that by a custom of the Church they were subject to the person that was placed over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the presbyters in consequence of a custom rather than of any arrangement of true overlordship." The Doctor's remark, that Jerome had referred to the Supreme Pontiff at Rome when he said: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ, and I am an associate of his happiness, that is, of the Seat of Peter; I know that the Church is built on that Rock," is irrelevant. It does not follow that because I associate with this particular church, therefore it is the first. It does not follow that because this church is built upon the Rock, therefore it alone is thus built up. Add to this the decree of the African council in the 99th distinction, chap. 1: "The bishop of the first seat shall not be called the prince of .priests nor the supreme priest, nor by any similar title, but only the bishop of the first seat. Nor shall the Bishop of Rome be called the universal pontiff." Now, if the monarchy of the Roman Pontiff exists by divine right, all these statements would be heresy, which it would rash to assert. To conclude, let us hear our Lord Himself, who says Luke 22: "There was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger."

Luther's use of Jerome would eventually find its way into the Smalcald Artilces (now part of the Book of Concord):

Consequently the church cannot be better governed and maintained than by having all of us live under one head, Christ, and by having all the bishops equal in office (however they may differ in gifts) and diligently joined together in unity of doctrine, faith, sacraments, prayer, works of love, etc. So St. Jerome writes that the priests of Alexandria governed the churches together and in common. The apostles did the same, and after them all the bishops throughout Christendom, until the pope raised his head over them all.

Luther appears to be quoting from memory here, combining letter 146 and the Titus commentary.


Addendum
A helpful overview of Jerome's view of th papacy was put together by William Webster The Matthew 16 Controversy (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1999). There, Webster begins with this statement from Jerome:

Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (p.68).

One would think this quote ends all dispute as to Jerome's view (see the quote in action on the CTC blog). Webster though goes through a number of quotes from Jerome, pointing out that indeed, Jerome saw that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter. But, for Jerome, Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church, and the other apostles share this with him in a secondary sense (p.69). All the apostles have the keys and equal authority.  Many of the quotes from Jerome utilized by Webster are on his web page The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18. The same Jerome letter used by Luther is also used by Webster:

When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves...For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africac and Persia, India and the East all worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more of a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles(p.71).