Subscribe by Email
« Anti-Romanides Sentiments On OrthodoxWiki Will Not Go Unanswered | Main | Jay Dyer at www.nicenetruth.com, tries to refute Fr. John Romanides »
Fr. Michael Azkoul, Photius Jones and the gang ask the difficult questions about Augustine
By James Kelley | July 26, 2008
I just posted this comment to energeticprocession.wordpress.com (my favorite site, hands down). I wish I could see the look on P. Robinson’s and Photius’ faces when Fr. Michael first popped in. Exiting for all of us, especially me, a long-standing admirer of Fr. Michael’s writings. Anyway, you all should also check the comments on my earlier post about “Anti-Romanides comments on OrthodoxWiki.” Could be a conversation-starter.
Here’s my energeticprocession post:
Wow! This is a great exchange. I’ve read it a few times, and I have to say, this is what I envisioned when I started my own website, which has much to say about Augustine.
Photius Jones, Perry Robinson, Fr. Michael (Yes, I’ve read your works very carefully, even the book on St. Gregory of Nyssa. I even interlibrary loaned your dissertation from Michigan on microfilm. Your early stuff is very dear to me, but so is the latest book on the ordination of women), and all the others, feel free to re-open this very informed discussion of Augustine either here or at my site, www.orthodoxpatristics.com.
Original blog, which I have dubbed “The Great Exchange,” found [here].
God bless you all, and pray for me and my family,
James
Topics: General, Heresy, Patristics, Theology |
July 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
James,
In case you have not seen this I thought you might find it interesting. Sorry for off topic comment. I could not find your email. http://tinyurl.com/69bpsr
ICXC
JOhn
July 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Fr Michael Azkoul is a very sharp man and this is probably the only thing in his theology that I can possibly think of that I disagree with. However, his argument is not easy to dismiss at all.
His thesis functions the other way around from knee jerk reactions that come to mind. Rather than “unsainting” Augustine, he questions whether or not Augustine has been improperly “sainted.”
1) When was Augustine first promulgated a Saint AND his feast celebrated as such in the East?
2) Sts. Justinian I, Photios, Mark of Ephesus, Palamas all regard Augustine as a Saint or blessed in some sense. Fr. Mike questions their knowledge of Augustine’s theology, in which case he’s probably right. They probably didn’t know much than very limited parts of his writings.
3) How much do the Fathers, allow for non-dogmatic speculations as an exercise?
4) Should Fr. Michael’s thesis be taken more seriously, engaged, and be considered for open questioning?
Those are just some of the questions I can think of in regard to this issue.
Photios
July 29th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Here are a couple of more questions to consider:
Define “saint” and “Father of the Church.”
Are Constantine the Great and Barlaam and Joasaph saints? Why or why not?
October 25th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The Fathers you mentioned who called Augustine a “saint” — have you investigated their reasons for their praise of a man about whom they knew almost nothing? Did they all call him a saint? Why had’nt the Church built churches in his honor, painted icons, named their children after him, depicted his life in her menaia? Why has forgotten to mention him in all the ancient hagiographies?
I think there are suffficent grounds for you to reexmine the issue.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Fr. Michael,
It is funny that you messaged us at this time, for I was just re-reading your book on Augustine, and it does appear that the issue of Augustine’s sainthood needs to be re-examined in light of your insightful arguments.
I just finished writing a book on Fr. John Romanides, which I am getting ready to shop around for publication (any ideas in that area would be appreciated), but my next project is going to be (possibly), a view of Augustinian theology in light of Orthodox spirituality. It is going to have a twist to it, but everyone will have to wait for publication to find out what the twist is, because it will be controversial and I do not want to start debating about a thesis I haven’t yet researched! Nonetheless, I am extremely troubled about Augustine. Mind you, I already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he (unwittingly, we hope) taught heresies that became the foundations of the post-Orthodox West’s Church(es). Fr. John Romanides even indicates, in his “Notes on the Palamite Controversy,” that Augustine was COMBATING Orthodox hesychasm in Northern Africa!
Fr. Michael (and everyone else), I believe that the only way Augustine can be a saint is if he recanted his (surviving) life’s work and became a noetic Temple of God. If he did this, he is a saint. If he did not, then he is not a saint. Trouble is, I don’t know if he did or not!
I’m sure this sounds silly, since we do not know if other heretics recanted or not, but please, anyone, help to clear up my muddled thinking on this issue, so I can go into my next book with a more correct view.
Pray for me, the unwise
James
October 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would like to ask how Augustine’s wrong teaching, noetically darkens our nous? I am only asking antagonistically in order to possibly get an answer that may precisely get at what nuts and bolts of the noetic aspect of heresy and its darkening of the nous and mind …
i ask: so, could it be that Augustine’s unillumined nous that attempted to theologize philosophically, and not via noetic illumination/theoria, should be distinguished from his “moral” writings? Or should he be thrown out all together ?
The reason I ask … many folks say what they are against re: Augustine, yet rarely does one find the neptic answer that guides us to “see” (be instructed) ‘how’ this error effects the nous … so knowing what we are AGAINST, please let us begin instruct what we are FOR …
a story ….
there was a group of Orthodox people that were stranded on a island. They built TWO Temples (churches) while they were stranded. When they were rescued from the island, they were asked, “What the reason for building a second Temple was, since they all attended the one?” The answer? “So, we would not have to go to the other one.” They created the second temple in order to have something to be against … have we ‘fallen’ into this possibly ?
Pray for me a sinner.
Diakrisis Logismōn
ps
does anyone have an electronic copy of:
John S. Romanides: Orthodox Ecclesiology According to Alexis Khomiakov (In: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1956/II.1 pp.57-73.) … efkathisto poli !
November 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“help to clear up my… thinking on this issue”
Well, I don’t think, personally, I can or should do that, but I do have a response to one of the comments on this post and, since I know it crosses in front of things you’ve said, I want to be clear that I’m not attacking you, but you have invited a difference of opinion, and I certainly have a [difference].
Perhaps we can do as St. Augustine teaches us and distinguish between the person and the person’s ideas [cf. his wonderful comment on sin vs. sinner]. In that, his defense against either a confusion of or dialectical opposition between person and operation is brilliant, and eminently Orthodox.
I know for a fact that I’m imperfect in how I’ve expressed myself and unworthy in perhaps taking advantage of too many frailties in my seeming opponents’ arguments (we are not really opponents - I refuse to believe that).
I cannot approach the piety and charity of a Fr. Seraphim Rose in something like this. But there are times when I feel that I must place myself between a thing that is under assault, and the thing assaulting it. I say ‘thing’ because it is really a frail use of our operations that is assaulting it, and not ourselves.
Have you ever stood completely still, while someone ran into you? Even if you meant him no harm, he can get bruised. Even if all you do is stand in the place you must stand and make no attempt to cause disturbance, it is like a wave crashing on a rock - it breaks, and you cannot help it.
In my desire to be worthy, I am trying to stand, like a shield, in front of something that I believe to be holy - that I believe to be holy as surely as I am not and, without which, I cannot know what holiness is. And I mean no harm to anyone who is running at that holy thing. But in my unworthiness and death, because of the weakness of flesh in this condition, I know I can do nothing but cause harm, whether I stand or not, or however I stand. And it is all my fault. So, I apologize. I don’t know what else I could do. Forgive me? But I understand if you don’t. Sometimes what I don’t intend as a corrective has that effect. Only, I have tried to say something to you so that you don’t see it later and wonder where my love of you has gone.
[here].