Neo-Augustiniasm in Catholicism and Protestantism?

[TheAtheist]

Every so often I find myself amongst religious friends getting into, from my perspective at least, rather arcane arguments.

Is the Koran Uncreated or Created?

What is the nature(s) of the person called Jesus?

Does the search for Enlightenment and freedom from Samsara occur on a Gradualist path or does it happen like a stroke of thunder or are we already Enlightened?

Usually, these arguments revolve around things I can’t evaluate, can’t test, can’t take a metric of, can’t measure, etc. But I do acknowledge that they mean alot to the person or persons arguing about them - so I think to myself I may as learn a little of what all the hoopla is.

So - Neo-Augustiniasm is a word I hear getting thrown around every so often. I’ve been told for instance to the Catholics that your Pope Emeritus is a Neo-Augustinian. But i’ve also heard certain Protestants use the term to describe some Biblical scholars,

But for the life of me, I have no idea what the term means.

I’ve read some of Augustine of Hippo’s works in my attempt to define the trajectory of intellectual history in the West and contrast it with my own native land, but i feel like i’m missing a few pieces of data… like…

1.) What is “Neo” about “Neo-Augustiniasm”?

2.) I’ve been told that Augustinianism is often contrasted with Thomism (which i’m much more familiar with due to personal circumstances). I assume the contrast is a bit Plato v. Aristotle in terms of language.

But is there a real difference in approach? I can say that Augustine is a little more “readable” to the average person, and some of his ideas seem a little…dour… but I don’t think i’m in a position to be able to accurately contrast his differences with Thomism.

3.) Why is Augustine so favorably linked to Paul of Tarsus? And for you Catholics - what is the connection between Neo-Augustiniasm and Bonaventure the Franciscan?

4.) The Protestants i’ve listened to seem to emphasize Augustine as lending legitimacy to a Christian culture set up against the culture of the world. Apparently this viewpoint is derived from a work I haven’t read, the City of God…

5.) And why do some of the Orthodox seem to have very strong negative feelings toward Augustine and his writings - to the point that i’ve seen some deny him as a saint or church father…

Any thoughts on these matters would be most appreciated!

 

[thenobes]

Every so often I find myself amongst religious friends getting into, from my perspective at least, rather arcane arguments.

Is the Koran Uncreated or Created?

What is the nature(s) of the person called Jesus?

Does the search for Enlightenment and freedom from Samsara occur on a Gradualist path or does it happen like a stroke of thunder or are we already Enlightened?

Usually, these arguments revolve around things I can’t evaluate, can’t test, can’t take a metric of, can’t measure, etc. But I do acknowledge that they mean alot to the person or persons arguing about them - so I think to myself I may as learn a little of what all the hoopla is.

So - Neo-Augustiniasm is a word I hear getting thrown around every so often. I’ve been told for instance to the Catholics that your Pope Emeritus is a Neo-Augustinian. But i’ve also heard certain Protestants use the term to describe some Biblical scholars,

But for the life of me, I have no idea what the term means.

I’ve read some of Augustine of Hippo’s works in my attempt to define the trajectory of intellectual history in the West and contrast it with my own native land, but i feel like i’m missing a few pieces of data… like…

1.) What is “Neo” about “Neo-Augustiniasm”?

2.) I’ve been told that Augustinianism is often contrasted with Thomism (which i’m much more familiar with due to personal circumstances). I assume the contrast is a bit Plato v. Aristotle in terms of language.

But is there a real difference in approach? I can say that Augustine is a little more “readable” to the average person, and some of his ideas seem a little…dour… but I don’t think i’m in a position to be able to accurately contrast his differences with Thomism.

3.) Why is Augustine so favorably linked to Paul of Tarsus? And for you Catholics - what is the connection between Neo-Augustiniasm and Bonaventure the Franciscan?

4.) The Protestants i’ve listened to seem to emphasize Augustine as lending legitimacy to a Christian culture set up against the culture of the world. Apparently this viewpoint is derived from a work I haven’t read, the City of God…

5.) And why do some of the Orthodox seem to have very strong negative feelings toward Augustine and his writings - to the point that i’ve seen some deny him as a saint or church father…

Any thoughts on these matters would be most appreciated!

From what I see online, and I am no expert, basically Augustine believed that wisdom was not possible without divine revelstion. On the other hand, Aquinas believed that truth was available to.all people ( through consciences?). Neo -Augustinianism seems to be the idea that the church should separate itself from the secular world in that the secular world’s view of wisdom is in conflict with the Church’s view.

That being said, lets attempt to answer your questions.

1. “Neo” seems to be an attempt to distort Augustine’s teachings to mean only the Church has only revelation from God, and that the secular world has nothing to say in regard to understamding God’s will.
2. Probably just different ways of looking at God’s revelation to men. For Augustine, though, revelation concerning salvation was the focus, while for Aquinas, any revelation tegarding Truth was the focus, since Jesus is Truth, and moving to the truth would be moving toward salvation.
3. Both had a radical rearrangement of what they thought was the truth, by direct divine intervention. Not sure how Bonaventure thought that no wisdom could come from those outside the Church.

4 Again, this may be a result of the beief that Augustine thought that no wisdom could be obtained outside of the Church.

5 This probably has nothing to do with Augustinianilsm, but rather that he takes a legalistic view towards God’s revelation, where they say they do not.

peace,
steve

 

[TheAtheist]

Thank you for the response. You’ve made things a little more clearer!

I’m surprised though - 200+ views and only 1 response? I was under the impression that CAF was the place to get mobbed by armchair theologians. Ah well, perhaps i’ve hit a dry spell so to speak.

 

[thenobes]

Thank you for the response. You’ve made things a little more clearer!

I’m surprised though - 200+ views and only 1 response? I was under the impression that CAF was the place to get mobbed by armchair theologians. Ah well, perhaps i’ve hit a dry spell so to speak.

I love to simplify stuff. Even stuff I don’t understand!. You are welcome!

peace
steve