Did St Augustine influence the Latins?

[Magicsilence]

It seems to me that St Augustine clarified and wrote down the beliefs he had received.

Surely if anyone suggests that he influenced the Latins and not that he provided a collection of Latin belief, then it is an admission that either:

a) the faith had so little to begin with that he created things which the Latins just accepted?
b) the entire West simply abandoned Orthodox Christianity for no good reason?

I think this is the same with any Church doctor. We do not see them as creating the beliefs we now hold, but defining the apostolic faith very well.

So why is St Augustine always referred to as influencing the Western Church, when in fact, if he had, would there not be small communites in the Western world that rejected him in favour of whatever Tradition had been handed down to them (I am thinking of a Western counterpart to the OO, though I will admit the analogy is far from perfect)?

God Bless!

 

[Padre_Ambrogio]

Dear Magic,

Saint Augustine was in many ways an original thinker. And he wote his works in Latin, unlike many of his contemporaries (Saint Ambrose, for instance, though a Westerner, wrote in Greek, so he had more mutual exchanges with the Eastern Fathers).

Since his opus was in Latin, his own were virtually the only theological works which had a wide diffusion among the ranks of the newly-converted Franks. The Carolingian school upheld Augustinian thought as the fountainhead and the top of Christian theology, but this was rather a way to cover a basic lack of informnation and understanding of a wider consensus patrum. It was through this one-sidedness that a virtually unbalanced theological framework was superimposed to the Christian West.

There were, in fact, “small communites in the Western world that rejected him in favour of whatever Tradition had been handed down to them”; think about Saint John Cassian, and the school very posthumously labeled as “semi-Pelagian”, which upheld a view of “Synergy” in the question on faith and works (a view not dissimilar from the current Orthodox one).

 

[Magicsilence]

Dear Magic,

Saint Augustine was in many ways an original thinker. And he wote his works in Latin, unlike many of his contemporaries (Saint Ambrose, for instance, though a Westerner, wrote in Greek, so he had more mutual exchanges with the Eastern Fathers).

Since his opus was in Latin, his own were virtually the only theological works which had a wide diffusion among the ranks of the newly-converted Franks. The Carolingian school upheld Augustinian thought as the fountainhead and the top of Christian theology, but this was rather a way to cover a basic lack of informnation and understanding of a wider consensus patrum. It was through this one-sidedness that a virtually unbalanced theological framework was superimposed to the Christian West.

There were, in fact, “small communites in the Western world that rejected him in favour of whatever Tradition had been handed down to them”; think about Saint John Cassian, and the school very posthumously labeled as “semi-Pelagian”, which upheld a view of “Synergy” in the question on faith and works (a view not dissimilar from the current Orthodox one).

Thanks for responding

So I guess you are saying that my choice of ‘a)’ occurred. It seems odd to me though, since no-one can therefore claim to have the faith of the fathers, if it evidently had been almost totally lost by the time of Augustine?

 

[Padre_Ambrogio]

Dear Magic,

I do not feel that I can fully share your a) hypothesis…

Talking of “Latins who accept Augustine’s creations” (well, I just referred to “originalities of thought” ), we fail to take into account a very much variegated Western Christianity:

1. a older and more traditionally-grounded “Roman” population, that would remain basically Orthodox till the 8th or 9th century, despite conflicts with local Arianism:
2. a much-strained “Hispano-Roman” population, that suffered a lot more under local Arianism, to the point of making complete theological innovations (i.e. the filioque) in order to defend its cause;
3. a neophyte population (the Franks) that was able to grasp only a little of the newly-embraced Catholic faith, but that quickly started to impose its understanding onto the pre-existing tradition (with tragic effects, from the Orthodox point of wiew).

 

[Ghosty]

On what things is St. Augustine viewed as being original?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

On what things is St. Augustine viewed as being original?

Certainly on some of his views on grace and predestination which such as the Councils of Orange refused to ratify as true Catholic theology.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Certainly on some of his views on grace and predestination which such as the Councils of Orange refused to ratify as true Catholic theology.

What about his viewpoint on grace and predestination do you (and may I suppose the majority of Orthodoxy) take issue with? And then what is your viewpoint on said issues?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

What about his viewpoint on grace and predestination do you (and may I suppose the majority of Orthodoxy) take issue with?

It’s not just the Orthodox, JMJ. It is also the Catholics who find some of his teaching heretical and just in plain contradiction to the Gospel. You can get an inkling of the problems with an article on EWTN.

ST. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND PREDESTINATION
Fr. William Most
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

Saint Augustine’s theology can be erratic, good things and bad things mixed together. It is a result of the isolation which Fr Ambrogio mentions. Augustine was cocooned off from the wealth of Mediterranean theology because of his isolation in Africa and his lack of knowledge of Greek.

And then what is your viewpoint on said issues?

Pretty much that of the Catholic Church, as explained by Fr Most in the article.

 

[Ghosty]

It sounds as if the problematic issues of St. Augustine’s theology were also taken on by the Latin Church, so I don’t see how it had too much of an effect on “de-orthodoxing” us. It seems as if the things he’s noted as being problematic in are the same things the early Protestants took as dogma from his works, abandoning the wider Latin interpretation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

On what things is St. Augustine viewed as being original?

I always understood that he helped in the change of the definition of ‘Catholic’ from ‘complete’ to ‘universal’

 

[Magicsilence]

Dear Magic,

I do not feel that I can fully share your a) hypothesis…

Talking of “Latins who accept Augustine’s creations” (well, I just referred to “originalities of thought” ), we fail to take into account a very much variegated Western Christianity:

1. a older and more traditionally-grounded “Roman” population, that would remain basically Orthodox till the 8th or 9th century, despite conflicts with local Arianism:
2. a much-strained “Hispano-Roman” population, that suffered a lot more under local Arianism, to the point of making complete theological innovations (i.e. the filioque) in order to defend its cause;
3. a neophyte population (the Franks) that was able to grasp only a little of the newly-embraced Catholic faith, but that quickly started to impose its understanding onto the pre-existing tradition (with tragic effects, from the Orthodox point of wiew).

1. When you speak of Rome remaining Orthodox, does that include Latin theology without things like Immaculate Conception, Papal Power, OR do you mean they had Eastern theology.
2. It is an odd claim that any Catholic would make something up to battle heresy. If they were making things up, then the original faith evidently wasn’t worth defending, a paradox.
3. Can you give some examples of these impositions?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I always understood that he helped in the change of the definition of ‘Catholic’ from ‘complete’ to ‘universal’

I’ve never heard that it ever meant anything but “universal”, nor have I ever heard that St. Augustine had anything to do with the change of meaning.

The root of the term Catholic is already used in Scripture to denote “throughout all” in Acts. Do you have anything to substantiate your understanding?

God bless!

 

[Padre_Ambrogio]

1. When you speak of Rome remaining Orthodox, does that include Latin theology without things like Immaculate Conception, Papal Power, OR do you mean they had Eastern theology.
2. It is an odd claim that any Catholic would make something up to battle heresy. If they were making things up, then the original faith evidently wasn’t worth defending, a paradox.
3. Can you give some examples of these impositions?

Peace and God Bless!

1. At that time the two things you describe were not so different. As I tried to explain with the mention of Greek-speaking Western Fathers, there was really a continuous interchange.
2. They could have misinterpreted the wider context. Sfter all, we are precisely speaking about cultural and linguistical barriers.
3. Papal supremacy… do you really need any other example?

 

[st_bernard]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I take issue with this hypothesis that St. Augustine was a ‘unique thinker’ or ‘cacooned from Holy Tradition’.

For example: The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of St. Cyrian not St. Augustine. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but St. Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait: “If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.” St. Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatever.

St. Augustine, who learned from St. Ambrose to draw the anthorpological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from St. Cyprian and specificaly from the epistle just quoted, which he called St. Cyprian’s “book on the baptism of infants” to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they wre nevertheless held responsible. “The uniqueness of the remedy” in baptism, it could be argued, proved “the very depth of evil” into which mankind had sunk through Adam’s fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. St. Cyprian’s teaching showed that this view of sin not an innovation, but “the ancient, implanted opinion of the church.” On the basis of St. Cyprian’s discussion of infant baptism and of St. Ambrose’ interpretation of the virgin birth, St. Augustin could claim that “what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our faithers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.”

I take grave issue with your attempts to isolate St. Augustine from what is true and holy Tradition of the early Church Fathers in an attempt to discredit him and the Western Church. I can’t, in all honestly, suggest your motives for this but I must say that it might appear to be unorthodox (no pun intended).

Gratias

 

[Magicsilence]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I take issue with this hypothesis that St. Augustine was a ‘unique thinker’ or ‘cacooned from Holy Tradition’.

For example: The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of St. Cyrian not St. Augustine. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but St. Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait: “If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another.” St. Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatever.

St. Augustine, who learned from St. Ambrose to draw the anthorpological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from St. Cyprian and specificaly from the epistle just quoted, which he called St. Cyprian’s “book on the baptism of infants” to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they wre nevertheless held responsible. “The uniqueness of the remedy” in baptism, it could be argued, proved “the very depth of evil” into which mankind had sunk through Adam’s fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. St. Cyprian’s teaching showed that this view of sin not an innovation, but “the ancient, implanted opinion of the church.” On the basis of St. Cyprian’s discussion of infant baptism and of St. Ambrose’ interpretation of the virgin birth, St. Augustin could claim that “what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our faithers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.”

I take grave issue with your attempts to isolate St. Augustine from what is true and holy Tradition of the early Church Fathers in an attempt to discredit him and the Western Church. I can’t, in all honestly, suggest your motives for this but I must say that it might appear to be unorthodox (no pun intended).

Gratias

A nice post Bernard, though I am sure none of those on this board, EO or Catholic have any ‘evil’ intentions, just a love of their tradition and Church.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Magicsilence]

1. At that time the two things you describe were not so different. As I tried to explain with the mention of Greek-speaking Western Fathers, there was really a continuous interchange.

So do you believe things like created grace, or the focus of Christ on the cross are post schism (i.e after 1054) beliefs?

1. They could have misinterpreted the wider context. Sfter all, we are precisely speaking about cultural and linguistical barriers.

Agreed, they could have done. But people were not stupid, they were just like you and me. It would seem unlikely that one whole realm of Christianity could slowly leave the faith and no-one would notice. And if one argues they could, then surely the same applies to anywhere else (i.e the East)

1. Papal supremacy… do you really need any other example?

The Franks? Would they really have influenced Rome (noted, If I am not mistaken, for its orthodoxy) that much?

Peace and God Bless!

 

[Ghosty]

So do you believe things like created grace, or the focus of Christ on the cross are post schism (i.e after 1054) beliefs?

Created Grace refers to nothing more than the created relationship man has with God’s Grace, specifically with Baptism. So even if the term “created Grace” wasn’t used before the Scholastic terminology was developed, the idea has always been there: wherever it is taught that Baptism begins a new life in Grace (as St. Paul teaches), you have “created Grace” since by it we are made “new creations in Christ”.

From 2 Corinthians 5:

17: Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

We know that this is what is meant by “created Grace”, as St. Thomas Aquinas states in the Summa:

And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing

Since our state of Grace is created fresh and new with Baptism, the term “created Grace” has been historically used by Latins. It doesn’t indicate a new teaching by any means, but refers only to the words of Scripture. Regardless, the use of the phrase came well after St. Augustine’s time, even if the teaching is Apostolic.

1. Papal supremacy… do you really need any other example?

Considering the fact that Popes were saying as much long before the Franks gained any power, I think it’s a far stretch to say that the Franks imposed this belief on the rest of the Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

I’ve never heard that it ever meant anything but “universal”, nor have I ever heard that St. Augustine had anything to do with the change of meaning.

The root of the term Catholic is already used in Scripture to denote “throughout all” in Acts. Do you have anything to substantiate your understanding?

God bless!

Have you not debated me on a thread where I put forward this quote from Ignatius…?

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church**. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
Ignatius
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2233_373220

For him, each church is ‘complete’; Catholic.

 

[Ghosty]

Have you not debated me on a thread where I put forward this quote from Ignatius…?

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church**. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
Ignatius
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2233_373220

For him, each church is ‘complete’; Catholic.

I don’t see how it says at all that every individual church is “complete”, he’s saying that just as where the Bishop is, so should the multitude be, just as where Christ is, there is the whole Church; i.e. the people should be united to their Bishop as the Church is to Christ.

For an example of how katholos is used, check out Acts 9:31:

31: So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

In the Greek that bolded section is kath holos, the roots of Catholic. This is where the title “Catholicos”, used by the head Bishop of the Armenian Church (and others), originates, as it is used to signify that he is the head of the whole Armenian Church. You can read about some of the Churches that use this title, and the reason for its use, here.

I see no indication that the term ever meant “complete” in the sense you’re using it. If you can provide a better source than a Father saying that where Christ is, so is the whole Church (which makes sense since the Church is the Body of Christ), I’m interested in seeing it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

In the Greek that bolded section is kath holos, the roots of Catholic. This is where the title “Catholicos”, used by the head Bishop of the Armenian Church (and others), originates, as it is used to signify that he is the head of the whole Armenian Church. You can read about some of the Churches that use this title, and the reason for its use, here.

Because the Orthodox laity have a more meaningful participation in the life of the Church than Roman Catholics experience in their own Church and they have a vital role in the transmission of the apostolic teaching, that does not amount to a primacy of the laity. The role of the laity is an expression of the very nature of the Church, of her catholicity.

Now it seems to me that you have created in the West a very large gap between the Magisterium, the teachers of the Faith, and the ordinary faithful who are expected to have a more passive role as “those who are taught” and who submit to the Magisterium and its teachings.

This idea is absent from the Orthodox world. ALL the faithful carry the burden of maintaining and transmitting the Faith in all its purity. This is what it means to be a part of the Catholic Church, where “Catholic” has its fundamental meaning of “according to the whole.” Catholic comes from Kata-Holou - according to the whole, according to the whole church, according to what is believed by ALL the believers and not just what is taught by a professional “magisterium” or the papacy.

The Orthodox Church is very “relational” and there is a flow of interdependence between the “sacred priesthood” (the clergy as normally understood) and the “royal priesthood” (the laity.) Neither can exist without the other and the tradition (the handing on) of the Faith devolves on *all *the faithful, whether they be of the sacred priesthood or the royal priesthood.

I don’t think that you will be able to grasp this since you don’t think in an Orthodox way of inclusiveness and interdependence, but you think in the Catholic way of a hierarchical system which means that some must be on top and others must be further down. So you think in terms of “primacy” and authority, a chain of command.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=200948&postcount=101