www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. John Cassian and Semipelagianism

I'm interested in the opinions of our esteemed posters on how Eastern Catholics should view St. John Cassian vs. the Second Council of Orange's condemnation of his alleged Semipelagianism.

I have had discussions with Roman Catholics who shudder in horror that Byzantine-rite Catholics do not adhere to Augustinianism or Thomism. They have even told me that I'm not a Catholic if I don't follow the letter of the Council of Trent's teachings on justification by clinging to St. Gregory Palamas' teachings.

I'd like to know how I should respond.

1) How is St. John Cassian Semipelagian?

2) I can see how it's possible to be Catholic and not a Thomist, but I do not see how it's possible to be Catholic and not an Augustinian.

3) I can see how an Eastern Catholic might consider some of the specific canonical regulations (and perhaps terminology) of Trent to be non-binding but not the content of any theological definitions. Tridentine soteriology is binding.

Dear John Ross,

St John Cassian is only a saint in the West locally in Marseilles, otherwise he is not honoured as a saint and this for his opposition to Augustine (the bishops of southern Gaul also opposed Augustine's theology).

The Second Council of Orange was truly a local Latin council and I don't see how it's views are binding on EC's. If anything, it misunderstood completely Cassian's theology and saw ANYONE opposing Augustine as being either Pelagian or Semi-pelagian (which is nonsense).

The West should be more focused on seeing how extreme Augustinianism led to the Protestant reaction of the 16th century etc.

We adhere to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers and unless there are RC's who believe that Sts. Basil the Great and the Gregories are heretics . . .

Tridentine Soteriology is NOT binding on Eastern Catholics simply because it is a formulation of Augustinian theology reacting to Protestantism. Again, unless the RC West wishes to condemn the Eastern Fathers (and let's leave St Gregory Palamas out of this equation for now), then it condemns itself.

At NO time has the RC West ever codified Thomism and Augustinianism as normative for Latin Catholics, much less Eastern Catholics within an "infallible" context. It simply declared that these theological systems are orthodox and spoke from within them. That does not mean that they are the only ways Catholics, especially Eastern Catholics, may speak.

Sometimes it is better not to speak with certain RC's who are so locked in their own theological "isms" that they cannot see the icons for all the statues.

Alex

The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to John Cassian as a saint.
"1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other vices.[138] They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia."
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html

The old Catholic Encyclopedia refers to St. John Cassian as a Semipelagian.

I have always told the Thomists that St Thomas said everything he wrote was worthless at the time of his death. I also point out that he was a saint due to his life and not his writings.

In all fairness, he didn't say that what he wrote was worthless, but rather that compared to what he had seen (in ecstacy) it was nothing but straw (which is a sentiment that every Saint would have). He was comparing his writings to a direct vision of God.

I think it's better to point out that St. Thomas Aquinas was the first leader of the "resourcement" movement, and not at all a Thomist. He undoubtedly would have prefered his students quote St. John Chrysostom and St. John of Damascus, as he frequently did, than to quote himself. His goal was to unite and synthesize the writings of the Eastern and Western Fathers, and express their theology in terms of the predominant philosophical language of his day.

A true "Thomist" studies Patristics first!

As for St. John Cassian, he is refered to as a Saint by the CCC, and that's good enough for me. The problems with the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (a local project of Latin Catholics a century ago, and hardly an authoritative Catholic document in any sense) need not be addressed here.

Peace and God bless!

If elements of their theology were shown to be incompatible with the formal teaching of the RCC, that would only mean that those Fathers were guilty of material heresy or made some theological mistakes. Every council is prompted by some preceding series of events, that doesn't mean that its formal theological teaching can be discarded. The position of the Latin Church has been that the Eastern Fathers' teaching was in agreement with its formal teaching.



The Filioque, Beatific Vision, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Vatican I eccesiology and the doctrines they implicate aren't enough? The most general trends/streams of medieval theology, the post-schism Doctors of the Church, the general forms of praxis for the last thousand years-- this can't be brushed aside. Following the logic of what you written: either Scholastic/Augustinian theology is essentially correct and that of the Eastern Fathers' contains large amounts of material heresy (i.e., theological mistakes) or vice versa.

Are you saying that Eastern theology is essentially heretical because it does not follow an Augustinian framework?

Dear NeoChalcedonian,

Those things are specifically Latin definitions of things that the East holds.

What are you going on about? You talk as if you've just come to this forum and are seeing Eastern theology for the first time.

Come on!

Alex

Dr Alex,

A most excellent post.

Michael, that sinner

No, it was asserted that Augustinianism was never made (officially) "normative" in the Western Church and that Tridentine soteriology is non-binding upon the Eastern Catholic Churches. My first counter-claim was that the formal teaching and praxis of the Latin Church along with their implications and the fundamental teachings of its most revered theologians for the last thousand years renders the first point moot, and my second counter-claim was that the argument from the circumstances which prompted the Council of Trent to the non-dogmatic status of its formal theological teaching is invalid. Trent regarded itself as defending and communicating the faith once delivered, and whatever teachings of the Eastern Fathers are found to be incompatible with what Rome teaches as dogma must be regarded as material heresy BY A CATHOLIC in communion with her. I certainly do NOT believe that Eastern theology is heretical. Concerning my question:



My point here is that if making adherence to these doctrines necessary to remain in communion with Rome isn't sufficient to constitute making Augustinianism "normative," then what would be? Afterwards, I wrote:



It appeared to me (at the time) that Alex was implying by some of his previous statements that there was some contradiction (or very strong tension) between Tridentine soteriology (or Augustinian theology) and Eastern theology. (I am no longer sure if my reading on this point was correct.) Anyway, if they do indeed contradict each other and Augustinianism is the teaching of the Roman Church, then the above would follow.

Hope that clears things up,

I think what I wrote earlier was fairly clear and if not my explanation to RomanRedneck should remove most remaining ambiguity. If there are further problems, please tell me. I don't know enough about what you thought I was saying to offer anymore clarification at this point.



That Tridentine soteriology is a particular formulation of Augustinian theology would reveal that it is non-binding on Eastern Catholics only if we just assumed in the first place that Augustinian theology was non-binding on Eastern Catholics. I think that has to be shown rather than merely assumed.

Dear Neo-Chalcedonian,

Good morning.

Surely, the onus is on the Latin Church to demonstrate when and where it declared Augustinian theology to be a) infalliblly proclaimed and b) binding on Eastern Catholics.

And also at which historic Union council this occurred.

But we could begin by determining if Augustinianism is even binding on all Latin Catholics.

And I thought you were saying that Latin Particular theology overrides Eastern Catholic theology.

It has never and does not now.

Alex

Forgive my butting in, but there seems to be something about this debate of the "when did you stop beating your wife" kind.

To ask whether "Augustinianism" is "normative" is to assume there is such a thing as "Augustinianism". Is there really such a thing? There is St. Augustine and there are the writings of St. Augustine. The latter contain much genius, some peculiarities of emphasis and a few plain errors. In short, he is like any other great Father of the Church. To turn this into an "ism" seems rather unnecessary.

There is a good reason why Tradition looks to synodal (and, for Catholics, papal) definitions for expressions of normative truths, rather than raising whole swathes of patristic writing to that level.

We need to remember, above all, that orthodox Christianity is communion with Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, communion made visible by membership in the historical and apostolic Church. Christianity is not an ideology. It is true that this mystical union with its Head has ideological implications; it is possible to talk about and reason concerning the experience of being Christian. But to raise any particular theological system too high runs a real risk of obscuring a far greater Truth.