Augustine of Hippo Eastern Orthodox vs. Oriental Orthodox perspective

[Little_Boy_Lost]

This is only an observation and I would love clarification but it seems many Eastern Orthodox often cite Augustine and his theology as one of the reasons for the Western Church drifting apart from the east. Not all orthodox, but a vocal minority who often find their way into polemics.

I have never heard of this from the copts or any of the other oriental churches. As far as I know Augustine is a righteous father and saint for their traditions. I was wondering if this is indeed true or if there is a similar feeling as amongst the Eastern Orthodox.

Thanks in Advance!

 

[Nine_Two]

While St. Augustine is venerated as a saint in the East and the West, he is of far less importance in the East than he was in the West. He was one of few in the West when he was preaching, and there were many in the East. The Western Church has placed great emphasis on his teachings, while the East has placed emphasis on its own Fathers.

Though the Church doesn’t agree with him on all things - and that goes for the East and the West, he is nonetheless a father.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Augustine is a treasure. The West’s gain is the East’s loss with this saint. Amazing man.

 

[trophybearer]

Augustine is a treasure. The West’s gain is the East’s loss with this saint. Amazing man.

As far as writing the first autobiography- yes; theologically- eh!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Theologically the man is more brilliant than ANY eastern personality you can produce. He contributed more to Catholic thinking and understanding of Christology and salvation, grace, free will, fought Donatism and Pelagius, wrote mammoth works like Civitate Dei (City of God) and Confessions. He lived during the barbarian invasion and was a calming force in an insane time. He fought heretics like a maniac, defined so much for the Church, and used his pagan background to eloquently help us to understand our faith walk. His writing is dignified, sincere, intellectual, and honest. I can’t imagine “eh!” ever being a reaction to Augustine. He has no equal in the East. Aquinas is the only person in his league IMO. I’m an Augustinian thinker and it is precisely for this reason that I don’t consider Orthodoxy as an option. Their lack of respect for him and sometimes, as in the case of the tone of your post, the going out of their way to just reject him because he did so much in the West, that’s a turn off for me for the Eastern Church.

As far as writing the first autobiography- yes; theologically- eh!

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I’m afraid none of you have answered my question.

As far as writing the first autobiography- yes; theologically- eh!

I agree with you there tophybearer. I don’t see Isaac the Syrian on any western calendars…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Theologically the man is more brilliant than ANY eastern personality you can produce. He contributed more to Catholic thinking and understanding of Christology and salvation, grace, free will, fought Donatism and Pelagius, wrote mammoth works like Civitate Dei (City of God) and Confessions. He lived during the barbarian invasion and was a calming force in an insane time. He fought heretics like a maniac, defined so much for the Church, and used his pagan background to eloquently help us to understand our faith walk. His writing is dignified, sincere, intellectual, and honest. I can’t imagine “eh!” ever being a reaction to Augustine. He has no equal in the East. Aquinas is the only person in his league IMO. I’m an Augustinian thinker and it is precisely for this reason that I don’t consider Orthodoxy as an option. Their lack of respect for him and sometimes, as in the case of the tone of your post, the going out of their way to just reject him because he did so much in the West, that’s a turn off for me for the Eastern Church.

Unless you have extensively read the Fathers of the East, especially the Three Holy Hierarchs (John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory the Theologian), I would not be so quick to exhalt Augustine over any of them. Believe it or not many of the Eastern Fathers had every bit as much influence over Roman thought as did Augustine. In fact, if I remember correctly Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus at least as much, if not more, than Augustine in the Summa.

Please remember also that while Augustine does carry a great deal of weight in Western Latin/Roman Catholic thought, he carries nearly no weight in Eastern Byzantine Catholic thought. So when you say “he contributed more to Catholic thinking” your statement is actually inaccurate. It would be better to say “he contributed more to Roman/Latin thinking”.

Finally, there are other minds in the West equally as brilliant, albeit not as influential. You’ve already mention Aquinas, which is a good start. An equally brilliant theologian and doctor of the Church that most people overlook, however, is St. Bonaventure; who’s works have a more “mystical” leaning than do the works of Aquinas, but they are every bit as intellectual. Also one must not overlook St. John of the Cross. Although his works aren’t “intellectual” but rather “mystical”, nevertheless he was one of the more brilliant minds of his time, he just chose to cast off the intellectual field because he believed it was insufficient to express the truth of God, a truth which can only be understood through experience (a very Byzantine notion). There are also many modern theologians who are having as much impact on the Roman Church today as Augustine; e.g. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Pope John Paul II, etc. By exhalting one theologian over others, no matter how ancient that theologian is, we run the risk of ignoring the great contribution of other theologians, and developing an overly one-sided theological expression.

 

[azerty]

"Believe it or not many of the Eastern Fathers had every bit as much influence over Roman thought as did Augustine. "

True. Pseudo Dionysus the Areopagite is the most quoted author in Thomas Aquina’s writings.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

"Believe it or not many of the Eastern Fathers had every bit as much influence over Roman thought as did Augustine. "

True. Pseudo Dionysus the Areopagite is the most quoted author in Thomas Aquina’s writings.

Thanks for the correction. I thought it was St. John of Damascus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Phillip,

Thanks very much for your post. Let me just briefly say this: I am not being highly inaccurate when I say he contributed more to Catholic thinking than any other theologian save Aquinas. What is the name of the church? The Catholic Church. It is not called the Western Church or the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic Church, it is called the Catholic Church. Of course Augustine impacted the Latin side of things but when I said he impacted the Catholic Church, I was not inaccurate.

Also, you’re assuming I haven’t read Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory, etc. While I have read their writings it has been a while. I found Augustine’s doctrinal conclusions far more compelling than the rest. That being said, because I find Augustine so compelling, brilliant, and most accurate when trying to understand, characterize, and explain many truths about theology, that doesn’t mean I marginalize and don’t value the others.

I’m not sure why you accuse me of “exaulting” Augustine above everyone to the degree that I don’t value or take notice of men like Pope St. Gregory or Ambrose or Bonaventure, Anselm, Chrysostom, and the rest? I’m not exaulting, just saying that Augustine’s impact on Catholicism was tremendous, powerful, deep, relevant, and IMO the most important saint for me. You truly don’t know me if you think I don’t value John Paul II as the greatest pope in centuries. I adored the man, admired him deeply, and think he is a poster child textbook example of a theologian and pope. I have said as much many times on here.

Thanks for your observations, however.

Unless you have extensively read the Fathers of the East, especially the Three Holy Hierarchs (John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory the Theologian), I would not be so quick to exhalt Augustine over any of them. Believe it or not many of the Eastern Fathers had every bit as much influence over Roman thought as did Augustine. In fact, if I remember correctly Aquinas quotes St. John of Damascus at least as much, if not more, than Augustine in the Summa.

Please remember also that while Augustine does carry a great deal of weight in Western Latin/Roman Catholic thought, he carries nearly no weight in Eastern Byzantine Catholic thought. So when you say “he contributed more to Catholic thinking” your statement is actually inaccurate. It would be better to say “he contributed more to Roman/Latin thinking”.

Finally, there are other minds in the West equally as brilliant, albeit not as influential. You’ve already mention Aquinas, which is a good start. An equally brilliant theologian and doctor of the Church that most people overlook, however, is St. Bonaventure; who’s works have a more “mystical” leaning than do the works of Aquinas, but they are every bit as intellectual. Also one must not overlook St. John of the Cross. Although his works aren’t “intellectual” but rather “mystical”, nevertheless he was one of the more brilliant minds of his time, he just chose to cast off the intellectual field because he believed it was insufficient to express the truth of God, a truth which can only be understood through experience (a very Byzantine notion). There are also many modern theologians who are having as much impact on the Roman Church today as Augustine; e.g. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Pope John Paul II, etc. By exhalting one theologian over others, no matter how ancient that theologian is, we run the risk of ignoring the great contribution of other theologians, and developing an overly one-sided theological expression.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Thanks. But how do say the copts or Armenians view Augustine position in the church fathers and his influence as opposed to the modern byzantine tradition.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m very interested in the OP’s question too, which no one has answered. Are there any regular OO posters here?

Gurney, I understand your feelings. Augustine isn’t even my favorite theologian (though he was important in my conversion) but to say “theologically, eh” about his writings is a serious turn-off to me. It seems flippant at best. At worst, it seems to want to deny that the West was ever “really” Christian. If some lay person just flippantly dismissed an Eastern Father, he would be accused of gross presumption, and rightly so. I find poor Anselm is treated the same way, although when speaking about him with Orthodox Christians, their knowledge of him is often limited.

You know, it isn’t surprising that in the past, the East and West have not have been the most conversant in the theological minds of the other group. Language barriers are a powerful thing. We are very lucky now, with really good translations available to everyone, and good commentaries on the language issues around those translations. THe East really can’t deny that Augustine, as a theologian, is an important part of the intellectual component of Tradition - not unless they want to say that as early as the 5th century, Western Christianity is unorthodox. That would, I think, have some serious repercussions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with all you’ve said here. I think language WAS a problem; you’re right. Heck, I teach sixth grade and each year, despite being an all-English class (miraculous to have in California these days!) I can’t understand these kids sometimes for the life of me! LOL

The 1054 split was just a culmination of a cultural, linguistic, and traditional divergence meltdown between the two that was just a perfect storm for a schism.

I have trouble assigning blame because both behaved so badly. And still do! Pope Benedict calling Orthodoxy “defective” was a huge mistep that JP2 never would’ve made, and the East has such an anti-papal anti-Western bias that I can’t see how they’d ever reunite. Disfunctional family up the wazoo!

I’m very interested in the OP’s question too, which no one has answered. Are there any regular OO posters here?

Gurney, I understand your feelings. Augustine isn’t even my favorite theologian (though he was important in my conversion) but to say “theologically, eh” about his writings is a serious turn-off to me. It seems flippant at best. At worst, it seems to want to deny that the West was ever “really” Christian. If some lay person just flippantly dismissed an Eastern Father, he would be accused of gross presumption, and rightly so. I find poor Anselm is treated the same way, although when speaking about him with Orthodox Christians, their knowledge of him is often limited.

You know, it isn’t surprising that in the past, the East and West have not have been the most conversant in the theological minds of the other group. Language barriers are a powerful thing. We are very lucky now, with really good translations available to everyone, and good commentaries on the language issues around those translations. THe East really can’t deny that Augustine, as a theologian, is an important part of the intellectual component of Tradition - not unless they want to say that as early as the 5th century, Western Christianity is unorthodox. That would, I think, have some serious repercussions.

 

[Hesychios]

…Augustine isn’t even my favorite theologian (though he was important in my conversion) but to say “theologically, eh” about his writings is a serious turn-off to me. It seems flippant at best. At worst, it seems to want to deny that the West was ever “really” Christian…

I don’t think so. That pretty much misreads saint Augustine’s place in Christian theology.

First we need to recognize that he may be 60 - 80% important (that’s just a swag, no way to know) in western theology. His writings are at the base of a lot of western thought. But he has always been maybe 5% or less (another swag) important in the east, there have so many other important church fathers (from many backgrounds) well known in the east, he is part of the pack, not the seminal authority.

But the point I would make is that he did not become a Christian until (I think) 387AD and his writings all came after that date over a 40 year period. That is roughly 350 years to almost 400 years after Christ that his ideas began circulating, and he did not introduce Christianity to the west, it was already there. If one figures 20 to 25 years per generation that could be anywhere from 14 to 20 generations of Christians.

So what did these western Christians believe before the great seminal thinker came on the scene? It must have been something Christian, but what was it?

I don’t think that the “eh” was intended to be an insult, even if it was a poor choice of expression. But he was one father in a field of twenty-thirty-forty to maybe 100 others (actually no one can count them) from simple desert monks to noteworthy bishops and martyrs and his thinking (some of which he seems to have invented or possibly even borrowed from outside of Christianity), is not generally regarded as impressive in the east as it seems to be in the west.

Augustine was a saint, no doubt. I have always been a big fan of his Confessions, and City of God (both of which I have had for years in my library until recently), but I can’t say I hold him in higher regard than any others, and as far as I know none of the Fathers east or west were gifted with infallibility.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m afraid none of you have answered my question.

I agree with you there tophybearer. I don’t see Isaac the Syrian on any western calendars…

I didn’t?

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think so. That pretty much misreads saint Augustine’s place in Christian theology.

First we need to recognize that he may be 60 - 80% important (that’s just a swag, no way to know) in western theology. His writings are at the base of a lot of western thought. But he has always been maybe 5% or less (another swag) important in the east, there have so many other important church fathers (from many backgrounds) well known in the east, he is part of the pack, not the seminal authority.

But the point I would make is that he did not become a Christian until (I think) 387AD and his writings all came after that date over a 40 year period. That is roughly 350 years to almost 400 years after Christ that his ideas began circulating, and he did not introduce Christianity to the west, it was already there. If one figures 20 to 25 years per generation that could be anywhere from 14 to 20 generations of Christians.

So what did these western Christians believe before the great seminal thinker came on the scene? It must have been something Christian, but what was it?

I don’t think that the “eh” was intended to be an insult, even if it was a poor choice of expression. But he was one father in a field of twenty-thirty-forty to maybe 100 others (actually no one can count them) from simple desert monks to noteworthy bishops and martyrs and his thinking (some of which he seems to have invented or possibly even borrowed from outside of Christianity), is not generally regarded as impressive in the east as it seems to be in the west.

Augustine was a saint, no doubt. I have always been a big fan of his Confessions, and City of God (both of which I have had for years in my library until recently), but I can’t say I hold him in higher regard than any others, and as far as I know none of the Fathers east or west were gifted with infallibility.

I guess I find it weird though that people keep saying “he was only one of many”. Like, yeah. I’m not thinking of you here, but one often gets the impression that OC members think Western theologians haven’t red anyone else, especially anyone from the East. That isn’t my experience. When I did my undergraduate degree, I had three teachers who were considered really knowledgeable about Augustine - one of them was one of the few Protestants to teach at the Institutum Patristicum in Rome. They by no means all agreed about Augustine’s views. And they all were very conversant with other theologians, East and West, as well as with Jewish and pagan writings. So while the average armchair theologian may be limited, I don’t see that as true generally (and honestly, lots of Orthodox armchair theologians are limited in scope too - that is probably the nature of not having the time to read everything.) There are a very few Eastern Fathers one sees quoted again and again.

I totally agree with you though that St Bonaventure is seriously under-read!

 

[Hesychios]

I guess I find it weird though that people keep saying “he was only one of many”. Like, yeah. I’m not thinking of you here, but one often gets the impression that OC members think Western theologians haven’t red anyone else, especially anyone from the East. That isn’t my experience. …

Yes, but I am not thinking of 21st century theologians, east or west. It really boils down to his influence over the centuries on other thinkers and teachers, and the many sermons and writings of others following his line of thought, and yes, his thinking was enormously popular among the reformers, most of whom were educated as Roman Catholic priests. So there was a ‘multiplier effect’ of his thinking through others. Yes, there are many over the years who just adore him because of that.

Historically that didn’t happen in the east (not among Papal easterners nor Orthodox easterners). He was known as a writer by some over time, but in the concensus Patrum his influence is not weighted very heavily, and probably should not be. This was not a conscious effort to exclude him over the centuries, it occured naturally. He was not an apostle and not a prophet.

The theory about baptism that was pretty much kick-started by him led some people to damn infants for fifteen centuries. Some writers (not me) have speculated that his long association with the Manicheans may have colored his thought, and through him influenced Latin Christian thinking into later tmes. I won’t claim to be well read on Augustine and at this point in my life I don’t have much time for it, but perhaps some people who can should look into that.

As to the original question, I think that we are not going to get many responses from Miaphysites here unless we wait a very long time, but perhaps we can look to see if Saint Augustine’s writings influenced the theology of the Copts, Armenians and Syrians? My guess is probably not, if anything they are even less likely to have been exposed to his thinking.

But even so, the Original Question is all wrong. "… *it seems many Eastern Orthodox often cite Augustine and his theology as one of the reasons for the Western Church drifting apart from the east. Not all orthodox, but a vocal minority who often find their way into polemics.

I have never heard of this from the copts or any of the other oriental churches. As far as I know Augustine is a righteous father and saint for their traditions. I was wondering if this is indeed true or if there is a similar feeling as amongst the Eastern Orthodox. * "

This is asking whether the Miaphysites in general share a common theory about the origins of Roman Catholic divergences. That information does not come from the east at all. Eastern Christians observe a difference in the beliefs of western Christians and ask why. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants alike point to Augustine and say “that’s why, he was a genius”.

 

[mardukm]

This is only an observation and I would love clarification but it seems many Eastern Orthodox often cite Augustine and his theology as one of the reasons for the Western Church drifting apart from the east. Not all orthodox, but a vocal minority who often find their way into polemics.

I have never heard of this from the copts or any of the other oriental churches. As far as I know Augustine is a righteous father and saint for their traditions. I was wondering if this is indeed true or if there is a similar feeling as amongst the Eastern Orthodox.

Thanks in Advance!

Augustine was a great and holy Saint. And like most saints, he was not perfect. If one looks hard enough, one can probably find some unorthodox teaching from many saints. What OO question or reject from St. Augustine is no more than what the Latin CC herself questions and rejects from him - certain excesses regarding original sin and predestination. Like most saints, his greatest value comes from his spiritual writings, and you will find St. Augustine quoted profusely in this regard by Coptic and Syriac homilists.

The reason St. Augustine is looked upon more favorably among the OO than the EO is because the OO have never experience the polemic rigamarole that occurred between EO/CC on the issues attached to St. Augustine. As stated, no saint is perfect, and whatever faults St. Augustine may have had does not go beyond that consideration in the OO mind. Interestingly, St. Augustine is in the traditional EO synaxarion. Obviously, it is only the polemics of the past century-and-a-half that has caused a downgrade in the status of St. Augustine among the EO. Whatever the attitude of modern EO may be towards him, we can be sure it is not Traditional, but a novelty. Of course, there are EO who still uphold the place of St. Augustine within the Eastern Tradition (e.g., goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153).

The Copts especially hold a special place in our hearts for St. Augustine. To us, he is not so much a Saint of the Latin Church, but a Saint of Africa. There are CO Churches under his patronage. Our canon of Scripture, identical to the Latins’, is attributed not to Trent, but to St. Augustine (via the Council of Hippo). Even among the Copts, he is the “Doctor of Grace.” We cannot forget that St. Augustine was invited as one of the orthodox Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council, though he died before it was convened. But his influence lived on in the 3rd Ecum’s condemnation of Pelagius, against whom St. Augustine wrote prolifically in defense of the true doctrine of Grace.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I didn’t?

Not really. You just said he is super important in the Church and was renown east and west for his preaching. It really didn’t address the nuances of Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks. But how do say the copts or Armenians view Augustine position in the church fathers and his influence as opposed to the modern byzantine tradition.

I attended a series of lectures by a Byzantine priest. While valuing much of western theology, he definitely took issue with the RRC position on original sin, pointing especially to Augustine’s supposed misunderstanding of Romans 5:12.