Towards Greater Moderation in the Tendentious Orthodox Dispute Over “Augustinianism”

by the Most Reverend Chrysostomos [+2019],

Former Archbishop and Metropolitan of Etna

 

 

The Editor of Orthodox Tradition recently asked me to write a short article about the status of Bishop Augustine of Hippo Regius (+430) and his writings in the Orthodox Church, an issue that created intense controversy several decades ago—controversy that still persists, unfortunately, in some theological circles. At the peak of that initial dispute, I was, as one of its primary writers, similarly requested to comment on an inquiry to the now defunct “Questions and Comments From Readers” section of Orthodox Tradition regarding the doctrinal orthodoxy of this eminent Latin Father. [1] I have thus decided to reprint, in acquiescing to Bishop Auxentios’ newer request, those original comments, along with a few changes and refinements. This decision came not without some trepidation, stemming from the negative Orthodox attitudes towards St. Augustine that I first encountered in my earlier comments on him. These attitudes are perhaps best summarized by the views of the distinguished Greek theologian and philosopher, Chrestos Giannaras, who, in his book The Freedom of Morality, published in the mid-1980s, described Augustine as the source of virtually all the theological deviations of the Christian West. Expressing the more positive traditional reception of this Father with which I was familiar, and calling him Saint Augustine, I found myself accused by certain clergy, in shockingly contumelious language, of being an “Augustinian heretic” and zealous “λατινόφρων” (Latinophron, Latinizer), if not guilty of sundry impious traducements against the Holy Fathers. Though I knew about various earlier negative reactions in the Slavic Orthodox Churches concerning sundry doctrines of St. Augustine, I was in complete ignorance of the polarization of views in more contemporary theological circles, and I thus entered almost naively into what turned out to be a veritable theological wasp’s nest.

I feel obliged, therefore, to assure my readers that I have no desire whatever to fan the flames of controversy that still exist with regard to the status of Bishop Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Even if I may use nomenclature and adhere to views of the Saint that reflect a moot stand, and even if, in so doing, I seem also to hold his person in high esteem, I assuredly do not do so in a spirit of counter-advocacy or without an awareness of the fact that, whereas for centuries he has been revered in many quarters of the Orthodox Church, the same Fathers who praised him were cognizant of the fact that some of his theological opinions were substantially at odds with the consensus Patrum. I likewise know that the effect of his writings on western Christian thinking was devastating and contributed to the West’s estrangement from the Orthodox East—a truly lamentable legacy. At the same time, I do not think that we can rightly ignore the honor shown Augustine, which has, as I said, been acknowledged for centuries in the Orthodox Church. To the end of making that point, and especially in an epoch when basic Christian virtues are rare, I would like to propose a more moderate approach to the person, writings, and teachings of St. Augustine. There certainly must be more edifying pursuits than those of fervidly arguing against the sanctity of a Churchman who, both his alleged and truly serious errors and misunderstandings notwithstanding, has long served as an example of the power of the Christian Faith to bring sinful men and women out of the delusions of paganism and the ways of iniquity into a life of pious morality, if not Christian enlightenment.

Of those who so vehemently lay such great stress on Augustine’s divers deviations from the consensus of the Orthodox Fathers—starkly so with regard to sin and human guilt before God (his views in this area are diametrically at odds with the pivotal and incisive doctrines of St. Maximos the Confessor), the nature of Grace, and the procession of the Holy Spirit—I would ask some consideration for the fact that further distortions and overstatements of his theological vagaries by Medieval, Reformation, and later thinkers unfairly obfuscate the Saint’s obvious struggle to remain faithful to the Church. One would, indeed, be hard- pressed to find evidence of malice prepense in his writings or his misstatements of the Church’s teachings, let alone tenacious resistance to correction by his contemporaries. Thus, Pope Vigilius (+555), in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among “...our Fathers,” of the “blessed Augustine” for the Saint’s willingness to retract and correct various errors in his “writings” and “sayings.” [2] Rather, St. Augustine’s works are marked by profound personal piety, a spirit of contrition, and a relentless deference to the teaching authority of the Church: traits of considerable spiritual significance. Moreover, while one may argue that his notions about “created” Grace are incompatible with Orthodox teachings regarding our illumination by Uncreated Grace, this does not mean that he did not experience true Glorification. His lofty spiritual writings would hint otherwise. A purported inability to describe the ineffable, or the perpetuation of conceptual ambiguities in doing so, does not necessarily obviate the possibility of one’s experiencing it.

We might cite such historical luminaries as St. Gregory the Dialogist, the Pope of Rome (+604), St. Photios the Great (+895), and St. Mark of Ephesus (+1444 or 1445), who, while citing him, in specific instances, with pertinent qualifications, nonetheless also pay open homage to Augustine’s sanctity. In his letter, “To Innocent, Prefect of Africa,” Pope Gregory calls St. Augustine “blessed,” [3] and St. Photios refers to him as the “divine Augustine” (“Αυγουστίνον τον ιερόν”) in his “Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia,” [4] as does St. Mark in the thirty-fourth of his “Συλλογιστικά κεφάλαια προς Λατίνους,” or syllogistic chapters in defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Latins at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. [5] In our own times, quoting St. Augustine in his arguments against the Latin teaching on the immaculate conception —in fact, from a passage in which Augustine speaks of sanctification and individual union with God (θέωσις, Deification, or Glorification) in a way consistent with the most exalted teachings of the Church Fathers—St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966) also honors him as “blessed” (see The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God [Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987], p. 42). The late Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina perspicaciously comments on this matter:

... [He] has always been regarded with some reserve in the East. In our own days,… there have risen two opposite and extreme views of him. One view, influenced by Roman Catholic opinions, sees rather more importance in him as a Father of the Church than the Orthodox Church has given him in the past; while the other view has tended to underestimate his Orthodox importance, some even going as far as to call him a ‘heretic.’ ...The Orthodox view of him..., held consistently down the centuries by the Holy Fathers of the East and (in the early centuries) of the West as well, goes to neither extreme, but is a balanced appraisal of him with due credit given both to his unquestioned greatness and to his faults. [6]

Though Father Seraphim’s comments are more balanced than most, his observations, too, evidence a critical approach to sanctity that can easily obfuscate its greater dimensions. It is in their fidelity to the common phronema of the Church, and not in the expression of personal opinions that may or may not reflect that commonality, that our Fathers and Saints make manifest their holiness. It is also, and importantly so, in their universal recognition by the Orthodox Church that the verity of their witness is ultimately established. Hence, it is worthy of note that St. Augustine is cited as “shining forth most resplendently among the African Bishops” in the Acts of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod (553).7 Similarly, in his epistle to the Fathers of the same Synod, St. Justinian (+565) includes Augustine in his references to the “holy Fathers,” along with such renowned luminaries as Sts. Athanasios (+373), Basil (+379), Gregory the Theologian (+389), Gregory of Nyssa (+395), John Chrysostomos (+407), Cyril of Alexandria (+444), et al. [8] In this same spirit, Father Georges Florovsky, not at all timid about criticizing, and not one to underestimate, the Saint’s doctrinal imprecisions, nonetheless called Augustine, in evaluating his spiritual witness in a spirit of moderation that we should emulate, “a Father of the Church Universal.” [9]

The Blessed Augustine is commemorated in the Orthodox Church on June 15, along with his mother, St. Monica (+387).

 

 

NOTES

1. Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV (1997), no. 4, pp. 37-39. The inquiry in question read thusly: “I know that you have refused to say that the Blessed Augustine of Hippo was a heretic. Nonetheless, there are those who would say that his teachings on ‘original sin,’ created grace, and the Holy Trinity are errors that cast doubt on his sanctity. Would you address a few words to your readers about this subject?”

2. “Decretal Letter,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV.

3. See “Epistles,” 10.37, NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. XIII.

4. Patrologia Grceca, Vol. CII, col. 809D.

5. While the more pervicacious critics of Augustine have argued that the many Eastern Church Fathers, supposedly unable to read Latin, who held him in high esteem did so simply because they had not read his writings (a rather audacious assertion), both St. Photios and St. Mark (Evgenikos) were familiar enough with his works to evaluate, qualify, and, more significantly, praise his theological thought.

6. The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983), p. 8. We might observe in passing that among his collected testimonials from the Fathers to the sanctity of Augustine in this work, Father Seraphim wrongly attributes to St. Gregory the Dialogist a reference to “Saint” Augustine in a letter which was, in fact, not written by the Saint, but addressed to him by Licinianus, the Bishop of Carthagena (in Spain). Using Russian sources for other of his references, his citations from various Greek Fathers are also, at times, not wholly faithful to the original Greek. Finally, the use of the words “blessed” and “saint” to distinguish between two categories of holiness, while a common device in some Orthodox circles, has no counterpart in the Greek Patristic tradition. The words “divine,” “blessed,” “righteous,” and “holy” (the actual meaning of the title “saint,” which in Greek is commonly expressed in two words, “άγιος” and “όσιος”), among others, are used interchangeably to refer to the sanctified.

7. “Rulings of the Synod,” P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrosancta Concilia, 1671, Vol. V.

8. Ibid.

9. The Collected Works of [Father] Georges Florovsky (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Biichervertriebsanstalt, 1989), Vol. XIV, p. 50.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 5-9.