Philosophy: Is Augustine Overrated?

[Truthstalker]

We saw some fire about Augustine on another thread. I would like to explore this.

Protestants seem to love his Anti-Pelagian works, while avoiding his anti-Donatist works. He is credited by some antiCatholics (sorry, no links) for “creating Catholicism”.

Is Augustine overrated? Can one be Catholic yet reject his theology? Is he the architect of systematic Catholic thought, rising above the chaos of his times to build a theology for all ages, a bulwark of the faith like none since Paul, and none since, or was he irrelevant, as some Orthodox seem to think, since his Greek was inferior?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We saw some fire about Augustine on another thread. I would like to explore this.

Protestants seem to love his Anti-Pelagian works, while avoiding his anti-Donatist works. He is credited by some antiCatholics (sorry, no links) for “creating Catholicism”.

Is Augustine overrated? Can one be Catholic yet reject his theology? Is he the architect of systematic Catholic thought, rising above the chaos of his times to build a theology for all ages, a bulwark of the faith like none since Paul, and none since, or was he irrelevant, as some Orthodox seem to think, since his Greek was inferior?

I dont think he is “overrated” in Catholic theology because Catholic theology is good at taking only what is best from any given Saint. If a given saint said a lot of good things they are worth the status of Doctor of the Church.

I think he is one of the most powerful and significant Christians of all time. One of his best writings is “On the Spirit and the Letter”. Honestly it is amazing, he harmonizes all of St Paul in such a manner that only Catholic soteriology can understand it.

From what I have heard, the Eastern Orthodox opinion ranges from poisonous heretic (private individuals make this claim) to “blessed” (but not Saint, which is the more common opinion). The EO dont like his writings on Predestination. The thing to keep in mind however is that his writings were ground breaking, he was one of the first, if not the first to really delve into the “tough questions” while striving to remain orthodox. In that sense he is foundational. The problem people run into (eg the Protetsants and EO) is when they dont consider that a lot of what he said was speculation and personal opinion (what do you expect considering he was a pioneer in some of these theological issues), the Church sifts through this as it defines the parameters of the Truth.

 

[Truthstalker]

From what I’ve read so far, he wanders, he drives points into the ground, he has an overenthusiasm for allegorical interpretation, and sometimes rhetoric gets in the way of clarity. He is hard to read hastily. But writers today are taught to be short, sharp and to the point. But style is not essence, and taking the time to read him well, when I do, pays off. I find him hard to read. That is more a style than substance complaint.

 

[Contarini]

From what I’ve read so far, he wanders, he drives points into the ground, he has an overenthusiasm for allegorical interpretation, and sometimes rhetoric gets in the way of clarity. He is hard to read hastily. But writers today are taught to be short, sharp and to the point. But style is not essence, and taking the time to read him well, when I do, pays off. I find him hard to read. That is more a style than substance complaint.

He works better in Latin. He wrote in a particular rhetorical style that doesn’t always translate well, particularly in his more diffuse moments. The great high points of the Confessions (“Sero te amavi, pulchritudo tam antiqua et tam nova, sero te amavi”) can still thrill in English (“Late have I loved you, O Beauty so ancient and so new, late have I loved you”), but much of his writing sounds overly elaborate when you try to render it into modern English. You miss the assonance and the word plays, for one thing.

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Regarding his writing, I agree there are parts that are very hard to follow. One of the biggest problems for the ECFs today is that they have not been translated into “modern” english and instead are still in that “old” english style which is not as easy to follow.

As for his style, from what I have read he does tend to drive points into the ground, thats his personality though, he tries to seal up all the cracks and wants to always be right or at least have an answer for everything. As for his wandering, it all depends, some of his work is so organized I dont know how he did it without wasting reams of paper (writings multiple revisions, outlines,etc), other writings dont seem to be as serious and rather more along the lines of free style quoting of Scripture and random thoughts.