Did Augustine corrupt Christianity with NeoPlatonism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AugustineFanNYC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AugustineFanNYC

Guest
An Orthodox friend of mine was saying that the Catholic Church brought in a lot of pagan beliefs with Neo-Platonism. I haven’t studied what all of this entails but my friend has assured me that St. Augustine was heavily influenced by neoplatonism. Since I do not know much about neoplatonism, I am just going on what it seems to be on the surface, which is a pagan belief reworked into Christian theology.

Is my friend saying that Catholicism is built on hijacked Greek philosophy and fused it with Christianity?

This makes it less a divine revelation and more or less reworked paganism, from his perspective. He said this is probably why it led to a lot of mysticism (kabbalah) and paganism/humanism to seep in through the Church, especially during the Renaissance period.

Is this true? If so, I’m bummed. I mean is being “neo-platonist” a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
From what I’ve gathered from a little researching of neoplatonism; we have the One, perfect unity in all things, then we have the byproducts; nous/intellect, the soul and finally matter.

Since man is both material and immaterial, he has the unique ability to climb back up a chain to get closer to the One. This can be accomplished through philosophy, practicing virtue, and doing away with bodily concerns.

I guess I can see why this would be seen as “paganistic”, because it does seem to look a lot like eastern style mysticism; kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism. But I could also see it as the correct application of what all of those other religions were trying to do. It shows that men try to find God in various ways through nature but ultimately fail and need grace and revealed truth.

But then I could see how this theology could also be corrupted or at least expanded on by other people and why it could have led to heresies and further interest in pagan mysticism.
 
Last edited:
I would say that it is more that there are ways Greek philosophy and Christianity intersected. Most notably, the language used in describing the Eucharist is very much taken from Greek philosophy, but that’s because Greek philosophy and Christian teachings on the Eucharist intersected.

Ultimately, though, it isn’t reasonable to assume that everyone but Christians are 100% wrong and have nothing to offer. Even the Apostles would quote and use language from pagan sources, and it wasn’t always critical. Paul is perhaps the most notable for doing this.

Edit: Just to point out that we have to be careful here. There are some who overly embrace pagan thought. However, the idea that some language or idea originally showed up in paganism is not reason to completely dismiss it, especially if it intersects with and/or helps us better understand what has been Divinely revealed. Of course, that’s where the Magisterium helps us.
 
Last edited:
ZMystiCat said:
I would say that it is more that there are ways Greek philosophy and Christianity intersected. Most notably, the language used in describing the Eucharist is very much taken from Greek philosophy, but that’s because Greek philosophy and Christian teachings on the Eucharist intersected.

Edit: Just to point out that we have to be careful here. There are some who overly embrace pagan thought. However, the idea that some language or idea originally showed up in paganism is not reason to completely dismiss it, especially if it intersects with and/or helps us better understand what has been Divinely revealed. Of course, that’s where the Magisterium helps us.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be more to do with the language they were writing in; Greek? For instance, “in the beginning was the Word”, I think it’s Logos in Greek. And with it Paul brought in Greek thinking from there, no? Logos being the created order of the universe in Greek philosophy?
 
Last edited:
ZMystiCat said:
Even the Apostles would quote and use language from pagan sources, and it wasn’t always critical.
Click to expand...
Wait, when/why would they do this, and would they use it to justify the pagan belief?
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
Wouldn’t that be more to do with the language they were writing in; Greek? For instance, “in the beginning was the Word” , I think it’s Logos in Greek. And with it Paul brought in Greek thinking from there, no? Logos being the created order of the universe in Greek philosophy?
Click to expand...
Most of it, particularly in Augustine’s and Aquinas’ time, would have been written in Latin. While the New Testament was written in Greek, it wasn’t merely language, though that does exist (e.g. the word “baptism”). Paul actually quoted or referenced pagan writers and practices directly.
AugustineFanNYC said:
Wait, when/why would they do this, and would they use it to justify the pagan belief?
Click to expand...
No. Scripture has a pretty consistent practice of referencing pagan thought but reframing it in the proper light. Much of the early chapters of Genesis are exactly this. Paul was no different. He quoted a few pagan writers, and passages like Galatians 3:27 reference pagan practice (along with the OT), but he always did so with Jesus and the Gospel in mind. Relevant to this, it shows that just because something comes from a pagan does not mean that it is certainly false. It may have to be reframed in a Christian context, but that doesn’t mean it is supposed to be totally rejected as if nothing of value is contained.
 
Galatians 3:27 is For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

How is this referencing pagan practices? What other verses can you cite that reference pagan practices?
 
No, Augustine took from neo-platonism and greek philosophy elements of truth which were in conformity to the Catholic faith and divine revelation. But, he wasn’t the only one. Many of the Church Fathers, most notably the greek fathers, were learned in greek philosophy and they too took from it various elements of truth that were in conformity to the catholic faith and divine revelation, discarded that which wasn’t or changed the meaning of it to conform to the faith. The Catholic faith is founded on divine revelation contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Philosophy is based on the natural light of reason and God is the author of both revelation and human reason and they can never really be contradictory and if it appears that reason contradicts revelation and the faith in some point of doctrine, then reason must give way to revelation and the faith because God’s word is certain whereas human reason can error.

I don’t believe it is accurate how your Orthodox friend mentions neo-platonism corrupted catholicism or Augustine who was one of the latin fathers as if various Orthodox doctrines themselves I believe have not been influenced very heavily by neo-platonism to a point where such doctrines are not compatible with the catholic faith or catholic theology or very questionable depending on how one interprets their doctrine. One such doctrine is their distinction between God’s essence and energies which is explained from what I have read or from the writings of various Orthodox theologians in a very almost extreme neo-platonic fashion such as after John Scotus Eriugena. Also, the Orthodox seem to favor the greek fathers of the Church and they were not ignorant of Platonism as can be seen in their writings.
 
Last edited:
I always find these accusations from Orthodox odd, because it’s a two-way street. As with hesychasm and the whole essence vs energies distinction we can point to neo-platonism and neo-platonist mysticism parallels.

I don’t mean to say it’s illegitimate, I’m just saying if they want to play that game the ground they’re standing on is made of sand.

Edit: What Richca said is much better.
 
Last edited:
Richea, thank you. This is what I was thinking too. Of course men can come to to a semblance of the truth through reason. God gave us that capability, and the Greek philosophers certainly came pretty close to it, among them Plato. But given that they were not Christians and did not know the revealed truth, it was still lacking. With revelation we have the complete truth. This makes sense.

But I could see the fear that some might think in that others would take this thinking too far. I was actually going to say that some of the Eastern Orthodox way of thinking, such as the process of Theosis, sounds WAY more neoplatonic and almost akin to Eastern pagan mysticism, but that’s just my two cents.
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
I was actually going to say that some of the Eastern Orthodox way of thinking, such as the process of Theosis, sounds WAY more neoplatonic and almost akin to Eastern pagan mysticism
Click to expand...
This, too.

Again, not that it actually is, but the “Catholics introduced paganism into Christianity” just seems like a poor tact to take if you’re Orthodox, as the polemics can go both ways.
 
Wesrock said:
Again, not that it actually is, but the “Catholics introduced paganism into Christianity” just seems like a poor tact to take if you’re Orthodox, as the polemics can go both ways.
Click to expand...
I think his concern was that this gave rise to some taking it too far and a lot of paganism/humanism and jewish mysticism entered the church. But these were heretics and were treated as such by the Church.
 
From what I gather most if not all pagan religions have a hermeneutic way of finding God. Most of them have these series of stages in order to become God-like. New Age movements are rife with this, as are Eastern religions. Even orthodox rabbinical Judaism, and especially with kabbalah, this is evident. It’s with the last religion though that many heretics found their way into the CC, fusing cabalic teachings with Catholicism.

I am guessing Augustine and such reconciled these pagan beliefs in that he recognized they were man’s attempts to reach God. But only through the revealed truth can we finally understand.

Just my two cents.
 
I wouldn’t call it Pagan. It wasn’t religious in nature. Moreover, Christianity is supposed to be a catholic/universal faith. This means that while the Jews were the chosen people, God was preparing the whole world. The story of the Jews is only part of the story, though that’s what we focus on in scripture. But in John’s Gospel especially, the time of the crucifixion is marked when the Greeks approach Christ and start showing interest.

John’s gospel also begins with “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God . . . etc etc.” The Word is then said to become flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. In the Mass, we encounter God’s Word (Jesus) through the scriptures and then through the Eucharist. If you think of the Word of God as the book, the bible, then you’re not understanding. It’s very supernatural and mysterious.

When pagans were preached to (as we see in the Acts of the Apostles), they aren’t condemned for their paganism exactly. St. Paul praises them for being a very religious people and mentions the temple dedicated to the Unknown god. He then tells people that they’ve had encounters with a god they do not understand. So he takes their religious experience, this encounter with the Word and then tells them who the Word is.

Every time early Christianity went to a new people, Christianity took the pagan practicizes and Christened them. Pagan temples were converted to Christian churches, pagan holidays were converted to Christian ones. People’s natural religocity was adapted to Christianity while trying to root out the idoltry and occultism, etc.
 
Until after the Protestant reformation, liturgical worship was diverse, though its basic elements remained relatively preserved. The phrase “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is related to the shocking variations in the liturgy. In fact there are stories of Christians presuming one of the Apostles went out east and evangalized the east. So when Buddhism was discovered, originally people presumed it WAS Christianity. My husband is the history buff (He studied in it college and taught it for awhile) but there are stories of people engaging in Buddhist practices with a language barrier and all that while thinking these were the lost Christians that had been seperated from the rest of the Church for some time. Eventually, they realized this wasn’t the case, though the resemblance of Christianity to Buddhism is enough that I’ve seen people suggest that Jesus had studied Buddhism and had tried to translate it into Jewish worship. Ideas of these things are all over the place.

So anyway, our liturgy only became all the same in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Pope mandated one standard liturgy for all except for those who were using missal created before 1370. So some very old religious orders still have their own liturgies that are from before 1370.

So to criticize Catholicism for paganism is ridiculous because Orthodoxy would then be guilty of the same thing. It’s only Luther and the Reformers who then insisted that Christianity had been perverted by paganism . . . that the moment Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, the leaders had become corrupt with political power and the theology got distorted. The original intent of the reformation was to try to root out paganism from Catholicism and this eventually included the rejection of the hierarchy as having any divine authority (We’ll just take your scriptures, thank you very much") and a salvation theory that wasn’t motivating abuses of power where people were trying to earn their way to Heaven through indulgences. Afterall, penances after confession for so expansive that no one could complete them in their lifetime. That’s why indulgences were there. And the list of sins was ever expanding so that people were fretting with constant anxiety which would motivate them to try to pay their way into Heaven. That was at least how the Protestants viewed the corruption in the hierachy. They couldn’t be trusted and had distorted the faith. True Christianity had been preserved though in spite of the hierachy’s corruption. That’s the argument of Protestantism though Protestantism has evolved since then.

As for neoplatonism, it is a fact. Our theology developed from an application of neoplatonist philosophy. This gave us rules of logic to which to intellectually understand the faith better. The Orthodox tend to view God as more unknowable, that it is impossible to reason about the faith like this and that it’s too intellectual. One must focus more on prayer and mysticism in Orthodoxy. And they tend to believe it’s this intellectualism in the Church that actually lead to a perversion of Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top