Bishop Augustine Case [i]

that has gone wrong in various ways on all levels!

Coptic-Oriented Review

Q&A Approach

Exposing an UnBelievable  Bunch of Hearsay Intoxicating Hoaxes

!!!!!!

(Still Draft)

 

 

Major Hyperlinked Index on Bishop Augustine's Case

 

 

Credits

  … Comes first, timewise, that stunning encounter with the shameful formal and public reactions of the COC, regarding a heinous TV show in Denmber 2000. The show aimed at naturalizing the idea of mixed marriage between Coptic girls and non-Christians. The pansy sorrowful Coptic reaction forced my eyes to open, my brains to recognize how fool and how low our actual doctrines are and my fingers to touch the tangible practical bitter result of the contemporary deteriorated bad education in the COC that with all my intimate love for and adherence to the COC  I had never known of before! Thanks to having that experience that I turned so scholastic in patristic criticism.

 However severe this sharp toot of a wakeup call was, yet thanks to it I am here now rendering this work in somewhat vigorous professional fashion I have never thought of any need to use before.

  I acknowledge also the Fairfax public libraries in Reston and Fairfax City, VA where I found the needed volumes to make my first step in the patristic serious research.

  I thank then my fellow-servant of the Lord, M. Salam, a.k.a. Pentaur, for gifting me the full body of PNF & NPNF body (produced by Ethreal Digital Library.)

  Above all, I thank my eternal Friend and God, Jesus Christ, for He first allowed me, by his high wisdom, into the bitter experience with Nada which led me into starting the valuable journey of criticism, starting it out with this humble paper. I thank Him, then, for He has strengthened me to overcome the vertigo pain and all other troubles, and made me eligible to expose and establish the first stepping stone on the way of the removal of a serious proliferated germ in the Coptic mentality and conscience of the last age, an age which is so crucial in the history of my beloved COC.

 

 

Foreword

  This dialog started orally and repeated many times. Now, it is time for it to show up written. The background story of it is found in “The Dragon’s last breath” folder.

  As the readers, meant by it, are lazy-brained ones as it is, even worse, the approach to it is to be the easiest ever: Q&A fashion.

  This is one of the rare articles I wrote simultaneously in both Arabic and English. It has been multilingual in its repeated oral occurring as well.

  The research on it started in the Fairfax county public libraries in the USA, and the first time I spoke it out was in the youth meeting of St. Mark COC of DC. It eventually moved overseas and was delivered and conversed in Colloquial Egyptian in theological lectures delivered to even some newly ordained priests. I have, as well, enlightened by it the brains and consciousness of many enthusiastic youths around me in many interludes.

  I thought at first adding it up to the series of “A Calm dialog with a Roaring Youth”, but I found out that both parties of the dialog would turn so roaring and both sides of the dialog would get united on one side so early in the course of the dialog that there could be no calm dialog nor a dialog in the first place. Later I opened a whole patristic folder to be opened by this article.

  Here the article is, after all, in its appropriate place and fashion. Again, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation, and this article is part of the war of this last generation.

 

Spring of 2001-- enriched edition in Fall of 2003, Reston,

P. Eng. Basil Lamie, a.k.a C. Mark.

 

 

 

Section 1

The Case and the Problems

Comprehensive Introduction

 

Q1-1

  Oh man, you caused and left behind a big hassle in the last youth meeting. What is that thing of “Augustine’s bunch of hoaxes” you raised last Sunday?

 

A1-1

 Simply speaking, I stated straightforward and unequivocally five factual statements:

1.  That the story of so called St. Augustine, and so called St. Monica has two versions, the real one as written by Augustine himself, and the fairy hearsay version that is boosted and repeated by "hearsayers."

2.  That based on the original story as depicted in the “Confessions of St. Augustine”, bishop Augustine does not make a good example of a Christian bishop, while Monica makes hardly a good example of a Christian wife and mother. Augustine failed twice to recognize the serious sin and opprobrium of the mixed marriage between a Christian partner and a non-Christian one, one time with his mother’s marriage, and the other when she tried to have him married to another “Christian” rich girl, while he was yet non-Christian, and even while he was under the knot of a well-established unofficial marriage.

Monica could be apologized for by her naivety yet she at least is not to be taken as an example, while Augustine, a bishop and well educated rhetorician, enjoyed no such excuse.

3. Based on the part of the story common between the original version and the hearsay one, the contemporary teaching figures of the COC share Augustine the blame, as they turn a blind eye and ignorant mind toward the above facts. They are further to be accused of blatant hypocrisy, for they consider good and holy example what they themselves call adultery and unaccepted.

4. Having in Coptic cleric circulation a hearsay version of a so famous and well documented story, the teachers of the COC are simply in appalling carelessness and/or ignorance. They are in short disqualified.

5. The original story, worsened by the hearsay, cause tempting catastrophic impact on the behavior of many girls who get lost in the hell of mixed marriages.

 

  I stepped up as such from one fact to another where I stopped at the last statement which is my practical objective.

  Not to cloud my most important purpose I made no mention of criticizing Augustine as a philosopher (he is a rhetorician who attempted to make philosophical arguments), or as a poor theologian who had never been recognized by any Orthodox Church as an authority of dogmatic theology. I did not mention that he was not even heard of in the Coptic literature. Not until the 1850s that his name found its way pushed by the need to translate western sources. I could have spoken volumes of the last issue but I meant to focus on the fifth statement I reached very steadily and straightforwardly.

 

 

Q1-2

 You better fell short of the last paragraph because your five statements must have stormed the folk enough. You would better fall short of it now because your “facts” already overload me either. Can you lay on me any of those hearsay elements or hoaxes you keep repeating alluding to?

 

A1-2

  What is the greatest figure you can count up to? I will roll you many jolting facts more than you believe, which I cannot help commenting on each one:

1. Unlike the hearsay goes, Monica did not shed her tears for the chastity of her son Augustine, or his refraining from the adulterous life he had. She, on the contrary, was only giving verbal (tearless) advices. She also gave deliberate and patient silence for not jeopardizing his education progress. Yes she cried, but for different reasons other than the sins of her son. One of them was when he followed the Manichean cult, a very ethically strict one . The other time when he was leaving her to Milan , a woman after all. The third time she cried secretly to God for helping her son to go faster towards conversion into Christianity. The last time took place in Milan.

2. One sillier hearsay is that the famous bishop of Milan St. Ambrose told her as a prophecy that the son of tears would not perish. She was told that by a bishop in Carthage that was mentioned nameless with a story that makes him certain not to be Ambrose. The mention of the famous phrase took place three books (wich covered many years) before Monica first ever in her lifetime met with Ambrose. There she did not cry in public or before any body, as she thought by Augustine to have been crying away from him, but talking with him with confidence and calm voice.

  If you now know that the patriarch himself mistook this bishop for Ambrose and repeated that mistake many times, like any amateur Sunday school teacher, you would estimate the weight of the problem.

3. How many times, and in how many hymns, you came by an allusion to the story of the prostitute that Augustine left knocking outside his door with one answer: “The Augustine you got to know is dead”? The fact is that this story not only had no evidence, but also could have never happened as the course of Augustine’s life went on.

4. This one is a passive or negative kind of a hearsay. Let me call it: don’t-hear-don't-say rather than hear-say. Very few preachers touch this story, with almost none of them to do it perfectly honestly. Augustine committed the act of divorce. Yes, Augustine was married twice. Being a bishop they do not like to say this. They, in essence, prefer a repentant adulterer for a bishop than a “repentant” husband . Recall my third statement when I spoke of hypocrisy.

Moreover, Augustine was serious in his first marriage as he described himself how he was faithful to his matrimonial vows and how he experienced the difference between the chaste marriage and fornication!

  That marriage bond referred to, mistakenly, by some as an adulterous relationship. They overload an expression Augustine used when he called his son, yes he had a one, “the son of my sin.” Actually Augustine called every carnal birth a sinful birth as he was a famous anti sex and anti-feminism. In the very book of his confessions he gave many prominent mentions of the meaning. He is also well known to have originated the teaching of the original sin the specific way it is currently dominating. Some scholars link this to his previous membership of Manicheanism. By all means, his calling his son the son of sin does not mean in the context that he meant his relationship with the son's mother was adulterous one.

  Whatever the case is, Augustine called himself faithful to the vows of matrimony, and the "hearsayers" either neglect this entirely or call adultery the only thing he was faithful in in his pre-Christian life.

5. But why did he expel this poor woman, be it a wife or a prostitute? Definitely not for repentance, because at least he was not Christian yet. It was under the pressure of his “holy” mother, who prepared another marriage for him with a rich girl. Augustine yielded and sent this woman away with his son. Here are three collective matrimonial sins: Monica picked a Christian girl for her non-Christian son, repeating her own dilemma of mixed marriage. Monica pushed for a divorce. Indeed such a would-be marriage as was planned for would have been considered polygamy according to the new testament theology!

6. And for exposing more embellishing hearsay about Monica: Monica lived in the shame of mixed marriage with a Pagan, by her own will. She was grown up in a "Christian" family. She was 19 years old when she was engaged to her Pagan espouse, and 22 years of age when she commenced her marriage. These facts then make a-lie-or-a-myth of the assumption taken for granted that she converted after her marriage. Those who cling to this assumption implicitly recognize the sinful and shameful nature of the mixed marriage. May they now, after heaving it exposed, speak out?

  One may find a mitigating factor for Monica here regarding her naivety. But one cannot find any excuse for the official teachers.

7. One last ironically surprising hearsay is that the sacrificing, faithful and cooperative father of Augustine is made out to be a thug, in the interest of exaggerating the “good” example of Monica as a Christian wife. Yes, faithful friend, sacrificing father and co-operative husband Patricius was. This is how Augustine described his father, unlike the hearsay “public” version.

 

·         Thus far, I am done with the most important points of additions and omits insinuated by the hearsay into the original true version of the story of Augustine and Monica. I could not help but putting my comments along with. I think, thus far, that at least my first statement is far justified.

 

Q1-3

  These claims are far stretch on me to believe. If you manage to prove it, yet the inevitable harsh question arouses as:

  How on earth could be all that true?

 

A1-3

 The thirst for repentance stories, the hunger for good examples all coated in unceasing pulpit propaganda are enough to blind people. The parrot-style narrations, that has been focusing for ages on the tears of Monica fooled tons of people throughout generations, and blinded them to the true story as written by the very pen of Augustine himself.

  On the other hand, the careless preachers who go after easy material guaranteed to draw the audience's attention helped keeping the unfortunate phenomenon.

  Now if you take guts to read objectively the story with me you will come out with the same facts. If you, further, read the social facts around you in the Coptic community, observe for the impact of the statuesque on the pulpit discourse, and vice versa; if you observe specifically for the poor mentality, corrupt conscience and sometimes the shameful behavior of both the congregation and the preachers, you will realize the link between such a story and such unfortunate tangible complications.

  Simply speaking, people alongside their religious teachers tend to finding excuses for themselves and their opprobrium. The story, especially in its hearsay shape. works for them!

 

Q1-4

  Your claims are as serious and strange much the way your professed purpose is great and important. This is really challenging, and I would insist that you prove this comprehensive attack in terms of minute individual points, one claim after another. Can you meet the challenge and prove all of your claims?

 

A1-4

  I will elaborate on all of them with tens of citations. I will even roll all the counter arguments that other people raised desperately to evade the flow of facts and truisms. In the course of the dialog, the responsibilities of all parties will be scrutinized. I repeat finally that my final and ultimate goal is to eradicate the ugly effects of such a story from the consciences and minds of the poor Copts, regardless of the actual biography of bishop Augustine and his kind mother Monica

 

 

Section 2

The saying of “Monica’s Shed Tears on Augustine’s fornication\adultery"

is nothing other than a famous Body of Hoaxes!

 

Q 2-1

Let us then start out with the most famous part of the story that you describe as “hearsay”. Monica is famous for shedding unceasingly tears on the adulterous life of her son. And Bishop St. Ambrose prophesied to her that the tears’ son cannot be perished, and hence the famous title of Augustine “the tears’ son”. What is you evidence that this most famous and unanimously accepted statement is wrong?

 

A 2-1

This HEARSAY is the SILLIEST one in the whole story.

It is actually a complex of threefold wrong clims.

First Mistake

It was not Bishop Ambrose who said 'the son of tears' saying!

  First, the clergyman who told Monica that “the son of tears” will not perish was not the famous prominent bishop St. Ambrose. He was rather an unidentified bishop in Carthage who went nameless in the “Confessions”. Unfortunately later, in the course of hearsay confusion, Ambrose, being the most prominent church man in the story, was mistaken for this nameless clergyman.

  Here you go with the fact as told by Augustine himself in his Confessions:

  “To Carthage I came, where a cauldron of unholy loves bubbled up all around me. [ii] … Thou didst grant her then another answer, by a priest of Thine, a certain bishop, reared in Thy Church and well versed in Thy books. He, when this woman had entreated that he would vouchsafe to have some talk with me, refute my errors, unteach me evil things, and teach me good (for this he was in the habit of doing when he found people fitted to receive it), refused, very prudently, as I afterwards came to see. For he answered that I was still unteachable, being inflated with the novelty of that heresy, and that I had already perplexed divers inexperienced persons with vexatious questions, as she had informed him. “But leave him alone for a time,” saith he, “only pray God for him; he will of himself, by reading, discover what that error is, and how great its impiety.” He disclosed to her at the same time how he himself, when a little one, had, by his misguided mother, been given over to the Manichaeans, and had not only read, but even written out almost all their books, and had come to see (without argument or proof from any one) how much that sect was to be shunned, and had shunned it. Which when he had said, and she would not be satisfied, but repeated more earnestly her entreaties, shedding copious tears, that he would see and discourse with me, he, a little vexed at her importunity, exclaimed, ‘Go thy way, and God bless thee, for it is not possible that the son of these tears should perish.’ Which answer (as she often mentioned in her conversations with me) she accepted as though it were a voice from heaven.” [iii]

  Then the next question is when and where exactly Monica met Ambrose for the first time. Again we are answered by Augustine. Only in the sixth book we are told about the first encounter of Monica with Ambrose, a meeting which took place overseas in Milan. The details of the context of the meeting show many essential differences from the context of the prophecy:

  “HIS MOTHER HAVING FOLLOWED HIM  TO MILAN, DECLARES THAT SHE WILL NOT DIE BEFORE HER SON SHALL HAVE EMBRACEDTHE CATHOLIC FAITH.

… By this time my mother, made strong by her piety, had come to me, following me over sea and land, in all perils feeling secure in Thee. For in the dangers of the sea she comforted the very sailors … and she hurried all the more assiduously to the church, and hung upon the words of Ambrose,… When, therefore, my mother had at one time — as was her custom in Africa brought to the oratories built in the memory of the saints certain cakes, and bread, and wine, and was forbidden by the door-keeper, so soon as she learnt that it was the bishop who had forbidden it, … Yea, rather, for that she was fully confident that Thou, who hadst promised the whole, wouldst give the rest, most calmly, and with a breast full of confidence, she replied to me, “She believed in Christ, that before she departed this life, she would see me a Catholic believer.” And thus much said she to me; but to Thee, O Fountain of mercies, poured she out more frequent prayers and tears, that Thou wouldest hasten Thy aid, and enlighten my darkness; and she hurried all the more assiduously to the church, and hung upon the words of Ambrose, praying for the fountain of water that springeth up into everlasting life.

For she loved that man as an angel of God, because she knew that it was by him that I had been brought, for the present, to that perplexing state of agitation’ I was now in, through which she was fully persuaded that I should pass from sickness unto health”. [iv]

  In the above two citations, I have underlined many parts to be noted and commented on:

1. Augustine mentions nothing of Ambrose in the whole context of his being in Carthage.

2. Augustine called the Carthage bishop who told Monica with what she considered prophecy “a priest, a certain bishop.” It is obviously impossible  that Augustine referred to his greatest teacher bishop Ambrose by such words. Had this bishop was Ambrose, Augustine would have referred to  by his dignified name and title.

3. Augustine further tells this fact about this bishop of Carthage as being (the Carthage bishop) a Manichean himself in his boyhood, a story that makes him impossible to be mistaken for Ambrose.

4. It was in the third book of “confessions” that Monica met with that priest of Carthage who told her that 'son of tears’ saying. Years and books later on, she met, for the first and last time of her life, with St. Ambrose.

5. Monica met Ambrose in Milan, after a long dangerous sea travel from Carthage. This fact adds more opprobrium on those who carelessly confuse the two characters.

6.  She met him after Augustine had Already renounced Manicheanism, the reason she cried for in Carthage in the first place.

7.  Here, in Milan, is not any mention of Monica's tears before Ambrose or with Augustine. It is only that she kept crying before Christ for the conversion of her son to the “Catholic faith” but yet she showed opposite attitude to Augustine, as she addressed him calmly and with confidence, Augustine tells!

8.  She was also clearly shown to be foreign to Ambrose in the sixth book, a fact which leaves no room for the silly argument of possible previous meeting, as she entered his church for the first time with her African customs, showing entire ignorance of Ambrose’s instructions and customs of Milan Church under him.

  There are all reasons that make the confusion between Ambrose and the other bishop of Carthage impossible for anyone who REALLY READ the story firsthand.

  This in itself is a strong example of the significant effect of the hearsay which so darkened the simple facts of the story that a major figure like bishop Ambrose be pushed earlier three books and snatched overseas from Milan to Carthage, just to be confused with a nameless Bishop.

  True, the whole mistake is kind of trivial in itself, but the names of those who have fallen in it hold great offices of the Coptic teaching, the pope to top it all! [v]

Second Mistake

Monica did not cry for Augustine’s ADULTERY

  Now we know already two situations in which Monica cried. One was when she did for Augustine's Manichean heresy. The other, she did secretly, for him to be quickly converted. None of them for his adultery as the wrong hearsay goes in easy sermons and booklets! Especially the first time, where the Carthage bishop told her the tears' son thing which is more connected with the common belief.

In both times, obviously, no blame on her. It is actually the confused hearsay “teachers” and “preachers” who are to blame for mistaking everything according to their wishful thinking.

 

Q 2-2

  Wait, wait! Assume they mistook the name of the priest who gave her the prophecy, and assume further that they mistook the reason she cried for in this very incident. It is not a big deal as long as what matters is that she cried for these two good reasons, and perhaps she also cried for the chastity of her son in another occasions?

 

A 2-2

  Here comes the most jolting surprise of the whole story. Here is the third mistake of that false statement, fpr Monica not only failed to cry for Augustine's fornication and adultery but also:

Third Mistake

Monica was lenient with her son's lechery for a Wisdom!

  Unfortunately, and unlike what they circulate falsely, yes! Monica did not CRY for Augustine’s adultery according to Augustine's narration. She even dealt with it "wisely".. On one hand she exhorted him calmly, and on the other hand she turned blind eye towards his behavior not to jeopardize his career! But nothing of tears in either case!

  Here you are Augustine's narration itself alongside his own comments on his mothers' position:

  “For she desired, and I remember privately warned me, with great solicitude, “not to commit fornication; but above all things never to defile another man’s wife.” These appeared to me but womanish counsels  [vi]  … Behold with what companions I walked the streets of Babylon, in whose filth I was rolled, as if in cinnamon and precious ointments. And that I might cleave the more tenaciously to its very center, my invisible enemy trod me down, and seduced me, I being easily seduced. Nor did the mother of my flesh, although she herself had ere this fled “out of the midst of Babylon,” — progressing, however, but slowly in the skirts of it, — in counseling me to chastity, so bear in mind what she had been told about me by her husband as to restrain in the limits of conjugal affection (if it could not be cut away to the quick) what she knew to be destructive in the present and dangerous in the future. But she took no heed of this, for she was afraid lest a wife should prove a hindrance and a clog to my hopes.

Not those hopes of the future world, which my mother had in Thee; but the hope of learning, which both my parents were too anxious that I should acquire, he, because he had little or no thought of Thee, and but vain thoughts for me — she, because she calculated that those usual courses of learning would not only be no drawback, but rather a.

furtherance towards my attaining Thee. For thus I conjecture, recalling as well as I can the dispositions of my parents. The reins, meantime, were slackened towards me beyond the restraint of due severity, that I might play, yea, even to dissoluteness, in whatsoever I fancied.” [vii]

  It is out of scope of this section to judge the wisdom of Monica in turning a blind, definitely tearless, eye toward her son’s “walking the streets of Babylon”,  with 'good' repeated advices on chastity.   It is beyond the scope to estimate how ethically accepted was Monica's disposition of "slackening the reins toward her son beyond the restraint of due severity.” [viii]
My point here is as frank as my blaming the clumsy pulpit men of the COC is outspoken. Someone has to go out and awaken the folks who are fooled by their leaders' outrageous hearsay and despite I do not like to be that one but I had to be him!

  Monica DID NOT CRY for her son’s uncleanness. The best she did is only what Augustine assumed, that she had different reason other than that of his Pagan father in “slackening reins toward him.” Even his pagan father had more honorable position as he recommended his sons's marriage! Under any Justification, it is a matter of fact, according to Augustine's testimony, that both his parents, namely Monica as well as her Pagan husband, shared the same disposition of leaving their kid free in the “streets of Babylon, " even "warned him with great solicitude not to commit fornication" ^[ix] but no more no tears no advice for him to better off get married.

 

 

 

Section 3

The Myth of the “Thug” Pagan Husband

 

Q 3-1:

  Actually St. Monica is, at least, a high example of a Christian wife who dealt with her husband wisely, who was sort of a pagan thug. Preachers and counselors customarily have support in her good biography as a Christian wife.  I heard once a Coptic 'counselor'  telling that had Monica kept whipping Patrix by calling him wicked pagan, he would not have believed and received baptism. It was due to her wisdom that Patrix converted to Christianity. How could this virtue be underestimated at all? [x]

 

A 3-1

  For ages Monica worked for a fooling example of an ideal Christian wife. For the hearsay to work better, the folk so much needed to sharpen the contrast between her and her husband that they made a thug of him. The poor man was the victim of the folklore desire of elevating the example of his wife!

  However, Augustine himself knew better about his own father than you and the hearsay folks. This is what Augustine tells us in his confessions regarding his father:

  Augustine tells us a fact that goes overlooked, that his father was more of ethics than his mother was as he was keen to prepare a legal marriage to his son and it was Monica who opposed and hindered that:

"… so bear in mind what she had been told about me by her husband as to restrain in the limits of conjugal affection )if it could not be cut away to the quick) what she knew to be destructive in the present and dangerous in the future لا but she took no heed of this, for she was afraid lest a wife should prove a hindrance and a clog to my hopes." [xi]

Asfor the character if Augustine Pagan father Augustine himself tells first:

  “… the expenses for a further residence at Carthage were provided for me; and that was rather by the determination than the means of my father, who was but a poor freeman of Thagaste." [xii]

  Again:

  “For who did not extol and praise my father, in that he went even beyond his means to supply his son with all the necessaries for a far journey for the sake of his studies? For many far richer citizens did not the like for their children. But yet this same father did not trouble himself how I grew towards Thee, nor how chaste I was, so long as I was skillful in Speaking. But yet this same father did not trouble himself how I grew towards Thee, nor how chaste I was, so long as I was skillful in speaking." [xiii]

  Also this quite funny scene:

  “when my father, seeing me at the baths, perceived that I was becoming a man, and was stirred with a restless youthfulness, he, as if from this anticipating future descendants, joyfully told it to my mother; rejoicing in that intoxication wherein the world so often forgets Thee, its Creator, and fails in love with Thy creature instead of Thee, from the invisible wine of its own perversity turning and bowing down to the most infamous things. But in my mother’s breast Thou hadst even now begun Thy temple, and the commencement of Thy holy habitation, whereas my father was only a catechumen as yet, and that but recently. She then started up with a pious fear and trembling; and, although I had not yet been baptized, she feared those crooked ways in which they walk who turn their back to Thee, and not their face.” [xiv]

  And finally:

  “when she had arrived at a marriageable age, she was given to a husband whom she served as her Lord. And she busied herself to gain him to Thee, preaching Thee unto him by her behavior; by which Thou madest her fair, and reverently amiable, and admirable unto her husband. For she so bore the wronging of her bed as never to have any dissension with her husband on account of it. For she waited for Thy mercy upon him, that by believing in Thee he might become chaste. And besides this, as he was earnest in friendship, so was he violent in anger; but she had learned that an angry husband should not be resisted, neither in deed, nor even in word. But so soon as he was grown calm and tranquil, and she saw a fitting moment, she would give him a reason for her conduct, should he have been excited without cause." [xv]

 

  These are the main passages that he mentioned a description of his father’s character, attitudes and ethics. It is clear then that Patricius was a sacrificing dad, despite his poverty. His sacrifices made him praised by whoever came to know him, Augustine said. He was co-operative with his wife in growing their kids. He was tolerable husband who gave his wife freedom to decide, act and go around.

  He was apparently not that kind of stubborn men, for we know that after whenever he had a strife with his wife, he would calm down and listen to her, even get convinced.

  No strange, as he enjoyed earnest friendship attitude, Augustine said again.

  Worth mentioning above all that we find him NOT opposing her growing their kids in her “Christian faith”. It was she who failed to baptize 'her Augustine.'

  In short, Patricius as a father was sacrificing, as a husband was cooperative,  as a Friend was staunch and as a sponsor he suggested the right thing of having his son married while it was Monica who opposed that ! This is whom the folklore calls a thug!

 

Q 3-2:

  You well rolled the pros. May you demonstrate his cons as well to come out with an honest judgment?

 

A 3-2

  From the same passages we only find that Patricius' madness was violent. A normal man was he, is not he? Whose anger is not but few? Even in the same very chapter we can listen to Monica advising her neighborhood women to act alike, which implies that Monica's husband was not an odd or exception measured by his society when it comes to the “violent angry husbands” thing.

  If we further remember that his violent anger ended at calming down and listening to his wife, we would believe more that he had that earnest kindness Augustine talked about.

  Another funny thing is when he was mentioned to be happy when he saw a sign of puberty showing up in his son’s body. Augustine, now a pious bishop as he was writing his confessions, took it against his father and described this as "intoxication." Here Patricius is to blame for not being virtuous and solemn enough, but Augustine himself is to blame for anti-biblical teaching on the topic of sex. Where in the bible sex is called intoxication?

  The worst indeed about Patricius is when he wronged the bed of his kind wife when he went after his lusts. That is ugly indeed, but who is really to blame the most: The pagan lustful man?!  Or is it to blame more the 'Christian' family who for whose daughter picked a pagan husband??!!

  These are the hidden pros and the exaggerated cons of Patrix mentioned above as written by the pen of Augustine himself!

  What then makes Monica that holy high example of a wife? Getting married to a non-believer and yet dealing with him as if he was the Lord (according to the spiritual likening the Apostle Paul put forth)? It is Monica's family to blame for dishonoring their Lord by handing their daughter in matrimonial lock to a non-believer. It is Augustine to blame for falling short of blaming that foolish deed. It is NOT the pagan husband to blame, only for covering the very shame of the others!

  Objectively speaking, one sees that Patricius is the best character among all of Augustine’s family. He was a “good pagan”, while Monica was a dull Christian who agreed to live under a matrimonial yoke with a non-believer even to deal with him as her "Lord", and Augustine was a bishop who turned a blind eye toward the bad example of his “Christian” mother’s family. Who is worth praising, then, under the circumstances..

 

Q 3-3

  Hold on! Who portraits the role of the  “Lord” in the likening, you said?

 

A 3-3

  Read back. According to the apology of Augustine for his mother, she was obedient to her “Pagan” husband according to the commandment that women should submit to their husbands as to the Lord. [xvi] We here face two mistakes. First and lesser is the misunderstanding of Monica, a naïve undereducated woman excused by being so for her misunderstanding of the scripture. The second mistake is unfortunately unexcused. It is the misinterpretation of Augustine, the well -educated bishop, of the commandment.

  According to Apostle Paul, the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church is personified in the Christian marriage (which must be in the Lord [xvii]), in which the woman personify the church while the man represents Christ. So the apostle goes forward commanding women to be obedient to their husbands in EBERYTHING much the way the church is to Christ. This obviously necessitates that the husband is himself subject to the Christian commandment that he be eligible to represent Christ that he may receive the full submission from his wife. It is false testimony against Christ for a woman to respect a non-believer in Christ as being a representative of him! [xviii]

  Now, for having the Pagan husband a representative of Christ is a hidden blasphemy. Can you think of the Church being submitted by her own will to a false “christ”? Here lies the most serious problem of the mixed marriage as it put to shame the whole institution of Christian marriage as well as distorting the example of the relationship between Christ and Church.

  It is beyond the purpose of the paper, and out of this very point to elaborate on criticizing Augustine as exegeses scholar or to go deeper in commentary on the Pauline passages. (Later brief supplement, however, will be rendered reviewing bishop Augustine as a doctor of Scripture exegeses.)

 

Q 3-4

  At least Monica helped her husband convert and believe in Christ by her mere good example. Be her a high example or not as a wife/mother, can one underestimates her this great contribution for her husband's eternal life?

 

A 3-4

  Again, again and again, let us find out the image in its most authentic source, that is the book of “Augustine’s Confessions”, and then see where exactly we should take the good example in, if any.

  What kind of example Monica offered? Augustine only speaks about her obedience to her husband. Just because she was obedient and amiable wife does not mean she represents a good example of a Christian person? Definitely she has to render the Christian virtues alike. Did she?

  On the contrary, she was lenient and neglectful, in her very obedience, of her husband’s “wronging of her bed." [xix]

  This phrase that Augustine did not elaborate on, might mean she herself shared him his wicked lusts, she let him having harlots into her bed or at least she let him do whatever he pleased with other women outside the house, which is the probability I hold true. In all cases she was not the good example. For, to assume the less evil, she let him have his affairs outside the house, It is not Christian virtue to let that go tolerated with, for fornication is the reason for a Christian spouse to ask for separation. For a Christian example. she might forgive (those who ask for forgiveness), but she ought not to neglect.

  She also shared her husband the “disposition” of “slackening the reins toward” their kid “walking the streets of Babylon.” [xx] She moreover fell short of preparing him a marriage, which was the only thing at hands to quench his lusts. To top it all, he pagan husband was for having their kid married while it was her who threw a clog in the wheel as Augustine said, justifying her by her wisdom of not hindering his learning career, "… so bear in mind what she had been told about me by her husband as to restrain in the limits of conjugal affection )if it could not be cut away to the quick) what she knew to be destructive in the present and dangerous in the future لا but she took no heed of this, for she was afraid lest a wife should prove a hindrance and a clog to my hopes." [xxi] Yeah he managed to mention a good differentiation between his mother's wisdom behind that over his father's, but however this differentiation is true, which I do believe it is, still the fact is that she did not shed tears and only verbally counselled him to chastity while it was his father who suggested the right and honorable thing!

  So what kind of a Christian example poor Patricius had to follow and convert after?

  Anyway, let us see how Catechumen was he, so that we better judge her by results. Again our reference is Augustine himself as he wrote in his confessions:

 "Finally, her own husband, now towards the end of his earthly existence, did she gain over unto Thee; and she had not to complain of that in him, as one of the faithful, which, before he became so, she had endured. She was also the servant of Thy servants. Whosoever of them knew her, did in her much magnify, honor, and love Thee; for that through the testimony of the fruits of a holy conversation, they perceived Thee to be present in her heart. For she had “been the wife of one man,” had requited her parents, had guided her house piously, was “well-reported of for good works,” had “brought up children,” as often travailing in birth of them as she saw them swerving from Thee. Lastly, to all of us, O Lord (since of Thy favor Thou sufferest Thy! servants to speak), who, before her sleeping in’ Thee lived associated together, having received the grace of Thy baptism, did she devote, care such as she might if she had been mother of us all; served us as if she had been child of all." [xxii]

  How long did Patricius live as a catechumen? Less than one year, the very year that coincided with his last months of lifetime. [xxiii]

  That is all at hands for the conversion of Augustine’s father Christianity.

  Patricius, so, was an old man, one year or less before his death, when he enrolled in the queue of catechumens. He received baptism on his very death bed. Even when he was a new comer to catechism he did not show the expected manners of over-piety and spiritual attitudes as assumed for new converts.

  Augustine himself evades shedding light on the most significant turn in his father’s life. Why?! It is yet very interesting that he spoke volumes of his mother's virtues instead of his father's, even in the very position he mentioned his life conversion and baptism!

  Some are in the custom of arguing that as long as we do not know enough so why not assuming the better? Well, but we know enough here that Augustine had good reason to tell us more had he found what helped making the image of the impact of his mother showing better.

  It is then clear and obvious to be concluded that his father’s conversion was not that kind of impressive one.

  But yet, I will consider for the sake of argument that Patricius was so impressed by the example of his pious wife that he changed from a Pagan to a Christian believer. Yet the question of “Example” still remains: Is Monica to be taken for general example for all women? Which means she encourages Christian girls to get married to non-believers and show them the good amiable example of a Christian wife?

  Certainly NOT! Nothing good comes out of nothing good.

  Who dares take example in Monica in that respect? Do you agree that your sister gets married to a Mozlem, for a practical example, after the example of Monica, and in the hope that she wins him over to Christ? Do you feel happy with tens and hundreds of “Monica-like” women who bring shame to their families?

  It is, then, as simple as that the example is still not there even if it is true that Monica managed to have her husband genuinely converted when her son was 17 years of age, a little window of time after he was still pagan habits and beliefs. [xxiv]

 

 

 

Section 4

Marriage, Divorce, and Mixed Marriage

One More threefold Hoax about Augustine!

 

Q 4-1

  Mixed marriage is a keyword in the whole story as you make it out. I only know of Monica being married to a pagan man. She was almost pagan when she got married where she converted later. That is ok I think. Why do you exaggerate the tone?

 

A 4-1

  Let me state the hoaxes again in few words. First of all, No knowledgeable person claim Monica was pagan when she got married. She belonged to a "Christian" family. Unfortunately many dull Christians did not take heed of having full Christian families or arranging for honorable Christian marriages to their daughters. Especially this sin was rampant in North Africa. Unfortunately Monica was the victim of such a family!

  Read the second book of Tertullian to his wife, [xxv] and read also what Cyprian said about that. [xxvi] Also read the epistle of Ambrose to Vigilius. [xxvii] This, that and that are how honorable Christian writers and awakened church men combated this ugly phenomenon. Much more FYI, all of these three cited figures herein were just related to North Africa.  It is worth mentioning that Tertullian was the most prominent Latin writer, the only language Augustine excelled and got educated with. It is again worth mentioning that Cyprian highly venerated Tertullian. Worth to note as well is that Cyprian was the prominent historic bishop of Carthage where Augustine lived and later under whose hierarchy he was a bishop of hippo. Finally it is worth mentioning that Ambrose was the main cleric figure in the conversion story of Augustine. The conclusion is that on the topic of mixed marriage Augustine always stood at odds and estranged to the Latin writers and preachers that he had definitely read whose books and taught by whose preaching.

  One apology that works for Monica that she was uneducated naïve girl. This apology does not do for Augustine the well- educated rhetorician and bishop. If he is compared to Cyprian or Tertullian, two alike Latin writers who belonged to the same place, he would be found far in want. He had many occasions to speak out against this sin, in his book of confessions, or in the other book on the good marriage, but it was clear he did not think in the first place of the mixed marriage as anything wrong. He was completely absent minded about the opprobrium.

 

Q 4-2

  This is one lamentable thing. But you repeated the word of mixed marriage other times in your introductory statements. You said something about a repetition of it? What was that about?

 

A 4-2

  Here comes another threefold hoax about the hearsay story of Augustine. In Milan Augustine was in real marriage not adultery. Monica did not ask for his repentance from adultery but she sought arranging for his marriage with a Christian girl while he was not Christian yet. To make way for that marriage she forced him to divorce or to send away his wife or partner. The hearsay talk about adultery, repentance and marriage while the truth is marriage, divorce and mixed marriage in order.

 

Q 4-3:

  Citations in support for one by one, please!

 

A 4-3

  It is true that Augustine lived in adultery for the early years of his youth. But that was not the case with the woman he lived with and had his son from. Augustine was in a real full valid marriage with her. It was not official marriage but yet was one indeed (one which brings about legal financial commitments). Listen to Augustine himself telling you the most stunning surprise:

  "In those years I had one (whom I knew not in what is called lawful wedlock, but whom my wayward passion, void of understanding, had discovered), yet one only, remaining faithful even to her; in whom I found out truly by my own experience what difference there is between the restraints of the marriage bonds, contracted for the sake of issue, and the compact of a lustful love, where children are born against the parents will, although, being born, they compel love." [xxviii]

  You see? Faithful to her, in restraints of marriage bond, with her he truly experienced the difference between marriage contracted for the sake of issue and the lustful love!

  I am committed here, however, to give mention to an allusion that goes ostensibly against this clear paragraph, in which Augustine calls his son "boy … of my sin":

  "We took into our company the boy Adeodatus, born of me carnally, of my Sin." [xxix]

 

Q 4-4

  Yes. This sounds challenging!

 

A 4-4

  This needs to open the scope of the theological interpretation of Augustine. Note first that in the very phrase he calls his boy "his carnal boy" To Augustine, every carnal birth is a birth of sin. He believed that the inheritance of sin is something carried along on the flesh. This is his rigid theory of sin inheritance from Adam. He always thought of something carnal as the main factor of the inheritance of original sin. This is a well-known fact about him in theology.

  Earlier in this book of confessions Augustine speaks paragraphs of how even infants sin:

  " HE SHOWS BY EXAMPLE THAT EVEN INFANCY IS PRONE TO SIN.

Hearken, O God! Alas for the sins of men! Man saith this, and Thou didst compassionate him; for Thou didst create him, but didst not create the sin that is in him. Who bringeth to my remembrance the sin of my infancy? For before Thee none is free from sin, not even the infant which has lived but a day upon the earth. … Then, in the weakness of the infant’s limbs, and not in its will, lies its innocency. I myself have seen and known an infant to be jealous though it could not speak. It became pale, and cast bitter looks on its foster-brother … But if “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” where, I pray thee, O my God, where, Lord, or when was I, Thy servant, innocent? But behold, I pass by that time, for what have I to do with that, the memories of which I cannot recall." [xxx]

  Augustine is so comprehensive about sin that he counts the pale face of infants equal to the sin of envy (even if he does not call the infants responsible). How could not he then call his son the son of his sin? And yet the more interesting remark is yet to come:

  The concept of sin in general (and the original sin specifically) went so far in Augustine's sight that he thought of it as the cause behind his inability to learn Greek. He writes about his boyhood:

  "But what was the cause of my dislike of Greek literature, which I studied from my boyhood, I cannot even now understand. For the Latin I loved exceedingly — not what our first masters, but what the grammarians teach; for those primary lessons of reading, writing, and ciphering, I considered no less of a burden and a punishment than Greek. Yet whence was this unless from the sin and vanity of this life." [xxxi]

  One notes his hesitation between ignorance of the cause and vague accusation of life's sin.. It is worthy of note further that while yet he was in his boyhood he held (his) sin responsible for his awkward Greek!

  The original sin is now crystal clear it was Augustine's dominant misgiving that derived his whole line of reasoning. No wonder he calls his son the son of his sin.

  Discussing the topic of Augustine's jeopardized intake and false explanation of the original sin is out of the scope of this paper. I am only underlining the fact that interprets what Augustine meant by calling his son "his carnal son, son of his sin."

  One more probable reason of Augustine's calling his son "son of his sin" is that he had his boy in his sinful life before his baptism note again that the whole context of the allusion is when he and his son were going to receive altogether the sacrament of baptism.

 

Q 4-5

  We came, however, by this before, when we discussed the first hoax about the purpose of Monica's tears. Yes it is clear marriage no doubt, at least in the sight of Augustine himself.     But where is mixed marriage in this? Augustine was not Christian and the woman was not mentioned to be. Also where is the divorce you talked about as they well lived altogether?

 

A 4-5

  In Milan, when Monica caught up with her son, she pressed him to send his partner, the mother of his son, away. Monica had a plan for her son. She arranged for another lawful marriage with a rich Christian girl while he was yet not Christian and not even a catechumen. Here you are the story told by Augustine followed by my comment:

  " Active efforts were made to get me a wife. I wooed, I was engaged, my mother taking the greatest pains in the matter, that when I was once married, the health-giving baptism might cleanse me; for which she rejoiced that I was being daily fitted, remarking that her desires and Thy promises were being fulfilled in my faith. At which time, verily, both at my request and her own desire, with strong heartfelt cries did we daily beg of Thee that Thou wouldest by a vision disclose unto her something concerning my future marriage; but Thou wouldest not. She saw indeed certain vain and fantastic things, such as the earnestness of a human spirit, bent thereon, conjured up; and these she told me of, not with her usual confidence when Thou hadst shown her anything, but slighting them. For she could, she declared, through some feeling which she could not express in words, discern the difference betwixt Thy revelations and the dreams of her own spirit. Yet the affair was pressed on, and a maiden sued who wanted two years of the marriageable age; and, as she was pleasing, she was waited for." [xxxii]

  To make way for this marriage, Augustine had to cause pain for and send away his faithful mistress:

  "Meanwhile my sins were being multiplied, and my mistress being torn from my side as an impediment to my marriage, my heart, which clave to her, was racked, and wounded, and bleeding. And she went back to Africa, making a vow unto Thee never to know another man, leaving with me my natural son by her. But I, unhappy one, who could not imitate a woman, impatient of delay, since it was not until two years’ time I was to obtain her I sought, — being not so much a lover of marriage as a slave to lust, — procured another (not a wife, though), that so by the bondage of a lasting habit the disease of my soul might be nursed up, and kept up in its vigor, or even increased, into the kingdom of marriage. Nor was that wound of mine as yet cured which had been caused by the separation from my former mistress, but after inflammation and most acute anguish it mortified, and the pain became numbed, but more desperate."  [xxxiii]

Yeah one more fact that goes overlooked that Augustine went back to adultery after he sent away his poor wife that the hearsay calls her a whore. The surprises counter has already been burst. Shame!

  Now for concluding comments, I underlie first that Monica asked for her son's marriage to be held before his baptism.

  Secondly, he lived for the mean while (two years) in a blatant fornication [xxxiv] , which means he was not yet even a serious catechumen or at all.

  To make way for this marriage Augustine caused his mistress huge continuous pain merciless until he sent away back to Africa. To make it worse on him, she was so faithful that she vowed not to get mixed with another man. Monica was her son's enabler in that shameful act.

  Once again a character falsely defamed proves to be much honorable than her 'Godly' husband. Sounds like every 'defamed' character by that obnoxious hearsay in the story proves to be of honorable stand while shame goes to the so called 'saints' in the story. 

  It is a divorce pushed for to make way for a mixed marriage. It is, by Christian measure, shame for the sake of other shame.

 

Q 4-6

 But what about his son Adeodatus? This question arouses my interest.

 

A 4-6

  He kept the kid depriving his mother of him. It is clear she was not able to support the growing of the kid financially while alone. Now you touch one more pain Augustine caused his mistress by depriving her of her son.

  You know what? Had Monica been merciful woman she would have exhorted her son to get lawfully married to his mistress, the mother of his son and to get converted and baptized along with her. It happened in the course of time that Adeodatus shared his father Augustine the baptism. Had his mother were not separated from him, the whole family would have been baptized altogether. Alas Augustine sent her away.

  Almost nobody addresses this point. Yet I found one Catholic writer who translated the book of confessions into Arabic who, despite being Catholic, and despite his flawed translation, he managed to rebuke both Monica and Augustine on this very point. This writer, Al-Khuri (Priest) Youhanna Al-Helw wrote:

  "However, the separation from this poor woman, in the way it took place, was not honorable for him or his mother. It was better for him to elevate her to a lawful marriage." [xxxv]

 

Q 4-7

  Where then on earth the story we are being told repeatedly that Augustine was chased by one of the prostitutes she had got to know. When she knocked his door calling for him by his name he answered that Augustine was dead. When she insisted that it was Augustine's voice he repeated: the Augustine you got to know is dead. This is another Augustine. For if this story is true then….

 

A 4-7

  … If! ……… And only if J

  You have the book of confessions and all other writings of Augustine at hands. I did my best to show everything I stated supported by genuine citations. Why not you take your turn and show me a single citation for this fairy tale?

  Yet even if the story took place indeed, it goes against nothing of the above aforementioned. It has nothing to do with refuting a single point so far. But you know what? It is apparently a typical mere fabrication from the imagination of a clever Coptic preacher. The likes of such a preacher are well spread on the Coptic church pulpit. Thanks to them the common Coptic mentality is ruined.

 

 

 

Section 5

Last Hoax: Bishop Augustine as an authority

 

Draft within the draft

   Not willing to gloss over the serious dual point of the paper, i.e. THE INVALIDITY OF AUGUSTINE\MONICA AS CHRISTIAN MODELS and THE RIDICULES OF THE HEARSAY OF THEIR STORY AS AUGUSTINE HIMSELF NEVER SAID ABOUT HIS OWN BIOGRAPHY, thus I only added this secion for the sheer love of comprehension.  Thus this chapter was planned at first to be only headlines. Yet it has been left at all since I wrote the first draft of this paper in 2001. 

  Now, preparing to publish the draft I added the meant headlines. In rounding off the paper I enriched the headlines herein with links to video and photocopies of the related tough materials that debunk that ridicule at all:

1. Augustine failed to learn Greek. [xxxvi]
  Notwithstanding his self-excuse for that (that the original sin hindered him to do!) he failed to learn the head language of the NT scripture and was only kept prisoned within the limits of the flawed Latin translations of Vetus Latina or the Old Vulgata.

  2. Combined with his ignorance and relying upon a wrong translation, he added his clumsy exegetical logic to interpret some scripture, 1Co15: 51. [xxxvii] Now when I came by Augustine blind attempt to explain this scripture, at first I got amazed how he could not anyways understand such a simple straightforward scripture, until I remembered he was a failure at Greek and depended upon the Vetus Latina or as some call it the Old Vulgata. Anyways of the source of the error, Augustine gave a wrong explanation of the right verse, and he himself refereed to the variations of the translations before him which while he was not ascertained of, he yet put forth his confident explanation that 'harmonized' the contradicting variations! 

3. Wrong counter-logic (besides a unnoticed blasphemy) in his justifying the divine preselection, which Calvin repeated. This false doctrine by both Augustine and Calvin is so well known that I will relieve myself of providing citations. [xxxviii]

4. He coined his own version of Justin Martyr's novelty regarding the OT apparitions. [xxxix]

5. Bishop Augustine was a major supporter of one of the most serious novelties ever: the so called Deuterocanonical Books. Even the head of his clerical province (Bishop of Rome) did not canonize the related North African series of synods until so late after a millennium in the Trident council, when the western church needed to rig any kind of authority to rebut against the Protestants.  [xl]

6. He came back and forth between two interpretations of the millennium, namely Present Post Millennium and Spiritual Millennium (Amillennium). He even gathered them altogether with a third distinct interpretation that has an allusion to realizing the millennium thanks to the 'Roman Christian Empire,' in semi adjacent chapters in his 'City of God.' [xli]  Scholars say he changed his mind as he aged. Actually it is common for interpreters to change their mind throughout their lifetime. Also there is no problem in principle for having not adopting a specific interpretation out of possible many, but yet Augustine did not remark that not any two of his three interpretations can be harmonized together! However, the real problem with Augustine's millennial interpretations lies in his fail to pay attention to the blasphemous result in his first one. The Millennium will end by the loosening of Satan for a short time. [xlii] This can never happen to the spiritual reign of Christ with regard to the cross.

  That is a typical mistake Augustine as an interpreter was used to more frequent than not. Going to further details of the millennial debate is beyond the scope. However, here is a link to a post with a detailed meticulous interpretation of the Millennium. [xliii]  

7. It is well known that Augustine is always the one who comes first in line to be quoted by the Roman church in support of the novelty of the Filioque.  He for a prominent instance wrote, 'but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit.' [xliv] I will relieve myself of any further citations and of discussing this single citation. The point within the purpose is to prove that it is Augustinian novelty and it is well known to be so.

 

8. Oh, I have said 'well known!'  Aint I?!

  Well, not well known to some of our Coptic 'head sages' L

  For by the way of this strange novelty, one calls a scandal that took place on our pulpits.

  It turns us to our clerics. Follows a link to a video in which the COC synod's secretary admitted his ignorance in what could be called nothing but an ecumenical scandal, only to end it up with a morbid joke that bombed. [xlv]

  Listen to that nonsense  and believe your ears.

9. Here is a 'landslide argument' given by Augustine in a corresponding debate against Jerome which Pope Shenouda III repeats enthusiastically with apparent admiration of Augustine's outstanding exegetical skills. Listen how harebrained argument it is. No further comment. [xlvi]

10. It was not known at all in our Coptic literature before the second decade of the twentieth century, after the first publication of an abridged translation of the Confessions, whose first edition showed up in 1909. [xlvii] Before than that date hardly few dummy mentions were given to synods of Carthage in those tables circulated blindly in old manuscripts taken perhaps from Greek sources.  Yet, no mention to Bishop Augustine of Hippo with any kind of authority has been ever admitted by any official Coptic source.

  I hereby challenge anybody to locate a place the name of Augustine was mentioned in, let alone giving the title of Saint to him, in any Coptic source, before 1910!

  For further astonishment, there is no formal recognition of Bishop Augustine as a canonized 'saint' by any Coptic synod throughout the whole history!!

 

·         In short, historically, dogmatically and scholastically speaking Bishop Augustine is not eligible to be called authority, especially within the COC, much the way the current COC head teachers are misled as well as misleading the congregation. Otherwise are egregious hoaxes. Period.

 

   Lord have mercy!