"Received into Full Communion"

[Nine_Two]

There is actually a great book on the subject of Saint Augustine’s in the Orthodox Church. It’s by Blessed Seraphim Rose. Here’s a link to it on Amazon. My church has a copy of it in their library. I plan on reading it once I get more of my biology and chemistry readings out of the way.

In Christ,
Andrew

I saw that book when I was writing my first response yesterday, it looks quite interesting. I’ll have to see if it is in my parish library.

 

[Cluny]

\Actually, I think it is far more accurate to say the current orthodox churches do not accept Augustine as a “major” saint because his writings create problems in their anti-Catholic post-schism world view.\

There is an excellent book by the late Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) entitled THE PLACE OF BLESSED AUGUSTINE IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

He points out that St. Augustine is doubtless a Holy Father of the Church. He taught “imprecisely” on some things, but died at peace with the Church and is cited as an authority by Ecumenical Councils and other Fathers of the East and West.

There was a time that the pre-Vatican II Roman Breviary had more lessons from St. Augustine than any other Father. But in the East he is one among many. Significantly, he is carried on the calendar of the Old Calendarist Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian as “St. Augustine the Great.”

One of Fr. Seraphim’s observations is that St. Augustine has important lessons to teach our outwardly correct, but inwardly cold and unfeeling, generation of Orthodox (and I should think Catholic) converts.

Holy Father Augustine of Hippo, pray to God for us.

 

[Hesychios]

Nine of two, there has been considerable anti-Augustinism among the EO.

That may seem to be the case for some individuals, but this whole dustup on this thread was prompted by someone claiming I am exhibiting anti-Catholicism just because I categorize Saint Augustine as a “Latin” saint! That person is just slinging mud, while the rest of the posters here are trying to keep the discussion on a higher level.

I think perhaps the sentiment that Saint Augustine is a “major” saint for the whole church is an expression of Praestantia Ritus Latini, which still influences some older Catholics. The Eastern Catholic churches have had to deal with this in the past, when their seminaries were dominated by Latin scholars. They were made to feel as though the Latin Fathers were the “major” expressions of the faith for both east and west, and their own predecessors were somewhat marginal (or “particular”) and thus less significant. That is not what I have said here, I am not marginalizing Augustine by simply recognizing that he was an enormous influence on the west but just one of many in the east.

Does anyone deny that Augustine was very formative and influential of western thought, while not very formative or influential of eastern thought? That is what I stated, and I stick to that assertion unreservedly.

Now to the idea that there is anti-Augustinianism anywhere, even the Roman Catholic church does not accept every belief he expounded as true, and we know he was not infallible. It is also undeniable that he was an enormous influence on the Protestant thinkers from the sixteenth century onward to today. So that’s it, he was an enormous influence on western “Latin” Catholicism and also an enormous influence on Protestantism, while having little real influence on the Christian east.

Stating this does not make one anti-anything, it is a statement of the facts!

By the way, Augustine’s Confessions is still one of my favorite books on the shelf.

 

[johnnykins]

Odd, don’t ya’ll think, that Augistine is derided as parochial because he wrote in Latin - the official language of the Eastern Empire until about 300 years after his death. Somehow the canard that no one in the East knew Latin always gets thrown up, so to speak, whenever the East has to deal with him. It’s true Greek was the lingua franca of the time, but educated people in the east certainly knew Latin. He was certainly a Father of the Church no less than the Fathers otherwise mentioned. The continual attempt by the Orthodox to belittle him and otherwise claim his writings are fraught with error - which is what one frequently sees among the Orthodox - even by claiming “he wasn’t known” or “he was a lcoal writer” borders on the absurd. The problem is the Orthodox can’t and won’t come to terms with him as a Father and the red herrings posited here are typical of what one sees in Orthodoxy.

Y’all may not like them apples, but they be true!

 

[mystified]

Getting back to the original question, probably the best place to seek that costly book would be at a diocesan library, or perhaps at a Catholic university.

 

[Timbot2000]

But in my opinion most Orthodox who become Catholic (in North America) do so because they become interiorly Latin. They embrace the thinking and faith of Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm. It seems a more natural fit for them.
.

Risible, Latins do not even believe the thinking of Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm. The thinking of the Western Church today is “do not think”. Modern western Christianity is an iconoclastic mish-mash of emotional sentimentality and aliturgical cacopraxy. If I were to sum up the West in four words it would be “Dare to be Stupid”. Six words would be “Nothing is too ****** for God”.

 

[Hesychios]

Odd, don’t ya’ll think, that Augistine is derided as parochial because he wrote in Latin

There was no derision in my post. You misrepresent me, or at least misinterpret me.

We are off topic here, this is unfair to the original poster.

• the official language of the Eastern Empire

No one is talking politics here. Actually, the Latin language was used in court, not on the street and not in the liturgy. Nevertheless, the people of the empire were very proud of their Roman identity, and continually identified with it, studying Latin poetry and philosophy as well as law.

But Augustine, a relative newcomer to them, was just one of many patristic authors who could be read in the east in any language, and books were expensive.

Somehow the canard that no one in the East knew Latin always gets thrown up, so to speak, whenever the East has to deal with him.

You are the one using canards, did you actually read what I wrote? I stated that saint Augustine’s writings were crowded out by the many eastern patristic authors, he was one of many in contrast to the western situation.

This is important in a society that must handwrite every book at great expense, or transporting them by wagon or sailing ship. It’s not like flicking on one’s Kindle and downloading something.

Greek was the lingua franca of the time, but educated people in the east certainly knew Latin.

This is a red herring, you know very well that I did not state no one knew Latin in the east. What I stated was most priest candidates in the west no longer studied Greek.

By this time the Roman church had changed it’s liturgy… from Greek to Latin. As a result most candidates for the priesthood in the west were not studying Greek, and the demand for original Greek manuscripts dropped off, making them relatively rare and expensive in the west. The liturgical switch to Latin also meant that the scriptures needed a good new Latin translation. Greek patristic authors were sometimes available in translation, and the less popular ones became general unavailable.

You seem to be blinded by prejudice and are composing on auto-pilot, Johnny web.

I would appreciate it you would quit stalking me and hijacking threads to satisfy your own agenda.

 

[Nine_Two]

Odd, don’t ya’ll think, that Augistine is derided as parochial because he wrote in Latin - the official language of the Eastern Empire until about 300 years after his death. Somehow the canard that no one in the East knew Latin always gets thrown up, so to speak, whenever the East has to deal with him. It’s true Greek was the lingua franca of the time, but educated people in the east certainly knew Latin. He was certainly a Father of the Church no less than the Fathers otherwise mentioned. The continual attempt by the Orthodox to belittle him and otherwise claim his writings are fraught with error - which is what one frequently sees among the Orthodox - even by claiming “he wasn’t known” or “he was a lcoal writer” borders on the absurd. The problem is the Orthodox can’t and won’t come to terms with him as a Father and the red herrings posited here are typical of what one sees in Orthodoxy.

Y’all may not like them apples, but they be true!

Since you clearly wish him to be a pariah, and nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise, there is little point in continuing this line of conversation with you.

 

[Hesychios]

Risible, Latins do not even believe the thinking of Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm. The thinking of the Western Church today is “do not think”. Modern western Christianity is an iconoclastic mish-mash of emotional sentimentality and aliturgical cacopraxy. If I were to sum up the West in four words it would be “Dare to be Stupid”. Six words would be “Nothing is too ****** for God”.

I would say that I myself do not see it that way, and I am sure that the Orthodox who convert to Catholicism would not actually recognize the church by your description.

I am inclined to think that more conversions to Latin Christianity are on an intellectual level than an emotional one, so the liturgy has less an impact on a prospective convert than the theology.

Certainly, nothing is too good for glorifying God, and we should always present our best to Him in worship. Perhaps this is what is so frustrating, I’ll agree that we can always do better no matter what our confession of Faith.

Michael, that sinner

 

[Formosus]

St. Augustine is venerated by the East. While his theology is not eastern, his writings do have some influence. As Hesychios said, he was one of many here in the east. As for modern day Orthodoxy, this particular catechism I found on Archbishop Hilarion of Vienna (a Russian Orthodox bishop) has a quote from St. Augustine in it. (en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/5_1) .