www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Augustinian teachings vs Eastern Theology

Dear brethren:

For the last months I have been "underground" reading the forum and also reading an Orthodox forum that most of you know, and a common topic I have found when discussing things like the interpretation of "original sin" is the teachings of St. Augustine.

Having said that, I have been looking for kind of a "summary" or matters where the Orthodox and Eastern Catholicism views collide with St. Augustine's, with no luck so far. Living in Mexico that is mostly Roman Catholic, it is not easy to find any sources that can address such an issue.

I honestly feel that a lot of the Roman Catholic views regarding the effects of sin and the way the Latin Church sees the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the emphasis given to guilt and repentance being more a "legal" matter than metanoia is absolutely influenced by St Augustine teachings, and reflected in the texts of Trent.

So please, if anyone can assist me on analyzing these matters and get a better view on the Eastern approach to these teachings so can help me on my journey, I will greatly thank you!!

In Christ and the Theotokos

B

Try Orthodox Readings of Orthodoxy [books.google.com] .

Thank you Stuart, I'll purchase the book, it looks very interesting!

B

Bernardo,

from the book reviews we read:


Since you asked:

It does not seem your appropriate book!

You would rather be interested in Seraphim Rose's book about Augustine

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0938635123


http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

Because when I think brilliant patristic scholar, Seraphim Rpse is the first name that comes to mind?

Whoever the reviewer cited by Arbanon is, he's wrong. Most of the authors are not Roman Catholics. All you have to do is check out the contributors of each chapter, which you can easily do in the Google Books link I posted. A few are Catholic--Ayres, Daley and Marion--but the others are Orthodox: Behr, Bradshaw, Demacopolous, Fisher, Flogaus, Hart, Lienhardt, Louth.. .

That aside, I like Arbanon's assumption that a Catholic scholar is incapable of writing objectively on Orthodox perspectives of Augustine. Does this mean that Orthodox scholars are incapable of writing objectively on Catholic perspectives of Palamas?

So, who would you rather have writing about the place of Augustine in Orthodox thought? Seraphim Rose, or Aidan Nichols? I suggest that it's time some people got on board with Father Robert Taft's definition of "ecumenical scholarship", and cease working off the assumption that one must always work from a partisan position.

What you, StuartK, are missing, is that Bernardo is looking for an eastern orthodox or catholic view on Augustine. This is all. I havent read the book you gave the link for. But that link, once opened, it gives reviews which contradict your proposal. Open and see it!

Regarding who is able to comment on the other side, I think the easterners have few advantages. To mention few points on that:
It was primarily on greek texts and writers that western thought was built on. Secondly, western thought has penetrated east more than the eastern west.

So the eastern guys generally are more propable to speak about west than the western ones about east.

I think you're just truculent for the hell of it. Must be an Albanian thing. One more country to cross off my list of places to visit.

I have the impression you dont perceice your answers an ugly arrogance and ignorance!!!!!

Thank you Arbanon. I understand that getting a "summary" is not the easiest thing since different authors have discussed the issue. I'll take a look at the GOARCH link and the book of Fr. Seraphim Rose.

One of the main issues I have with the interpretation the RC have made in general of Augustine is the fact that all humans are somehow "guilty" of Adams sin and not only bear the effects of such sin, which matter has created all this "Theology of guilt" that affects lots of us Roman Catholics (yeah Im a RC by birth, attended some years the Melkite Church and now am leaning every day more towards Orthodoxy).

Thank you very much.

B

"If you want to know about Augustine, read Augustine, don't read summaries of his work written by dyspeptic Greeks"--David Bentley Hart, Orthodox theologian, Augustine scholar.

Yeah,

"Concluding Advice

Let me finish with a piece of advice for Dr. Hart: if you’re going to defend Christianity, do it intelligently. Don’t misquote sources that even skeptics can check for themselves, and don’t gild the lily. Please portray the past accurately, warts and all"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/misreading-st-augustine/

Forgive me please my bad English...

Well...Orthodox main view on Avgustin - that he was just first opponent against heretic Pellagy. This role had mislead him in theologi.

Very radical view you can get in book by fr.A. Kalomiros "River of Fire". That fr. Seraphim Rose had answered on it with "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church.".

Also you cen read next http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_augustine_refutation_veneration.shtml

Bernardo, my Melkite brother,

It's off-topic but I have to interrupt here to say hello and that you've been missed. It's good to see a post from you - it's been a long time, old friend. Prayers that you are well.

Many years,

Neil

You know, the more I read the less I believe that Augustine actually taught things that are incompatible with the views of the eastern Church. I actually think the OP is incorrect and overestimates the reliance of the modern RC church on Augustine, as he is problematic for them in a number of areas. Most of the problems with RC legalism actually come from medieval scholastic interpretations of Augustine, rather than Augustine himself. I sometimes even wonder how much Augustine the scholastics had actually even read - for example, inventions such as limbo are totally incompatible with Augustine's theology, the modern RC interpretation of scriptural passages regarding the papacy is completely incompatible with Augustine's theology, and the list goes on. I have a nasty feeling at times when reading the scholastics that they are regurgitating quotes from Augustine and never taking the trouble to actually read him themselves, which goes back to Stuart's point. If you read one of the main works in question, it seems as if Augustine's original sin is much more like the transmitted consequences of Adam's sin of the eastern fathers than the transmitted guilt of the scholastics. Baptism is indeed for the original sin, but for it's consequences (death) rather than for imputed guilt. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Of course it's also important to remember that Augustine's perspectives changed during his life time.