Was Augustine a Filioquist in the sense that the Council of Florence defines Pneumatology? Some say “yes,” but they are depending upon a surface level understanding of some hard-to-interpret words of Augustine’s. Ironically, Augustine anticipated his words would be misused:
I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me (Book 1, Par 6).
To thoroughly answer the question of whether Augustine’s Pneumatology was Orthodox, it is absolutely necessary to unpack all 15 books of On the Trinity. By understanding these books’ illustrations and consistent arguments, it is possible to get a firm handle on Augustine’s Pneumatology.
In this article we cover Book 1.
Book 1 begins with how God always “is” and that He is not self-generated. In this discussion, Augustine begins his speculations about the Trinity. Some of these speculations I find interesting, because of their insight into later theological questions.
Theopaschism:
…not by that divine virtue wherein He is equal to the Father, but by that human infirmity whereby He was crucified. (Par 3)
…yet the Lord of glory was crucified, because even God is rightly said to have been crucified, not after the power of the divinity, but after the weakness of the flesh. (Par 28)
Implicit energy-essence distinction:
For we, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become, in our own measure, immortal. But the eternal life itself, of which we are made partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by partaking of it, shall live eternally, are another. (Par 10)
Latria-dulia distinction:
[W]e are commanded to serve one another by love, which is in Greek δουλεύειν, but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greek λατρεύειν . From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service to images which is due to God. For it is this service concerning which it is said, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve. For this is found also more distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which have λατρεύσεις . Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service, seeing that it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve, (and hence, too, the apostle repudiates those who worship and serve the creature more than the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature, to whom such a service is paid by all the saints; as says the apostle, For we are the circumcision, which serve the Spirit of God, (Phil 3:3) which is in the Greek λατρεύοντες . (Par 13)
As it pertains to Trinitarian doctrine, we should take note that Augustine identifies the difference between the Persons by their relationships. For example:
“For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever.” Amen. [Rom 11:36] For if of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so as to assign each clause severally to each person: of Him, that is to say, of the Father; through Him, that is to say, through the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the Holy Spirit — it is manifest that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, inasmuch as the words continue in the singular number, “To whom be glory forever.” (Par 12)
In short, everything is OF the Father, THROUGH the Son, and IN the Holy Spirit. This is important to keep in the back of our minds, because the way God works in creation, and in His own lonesome, is dictated by one Person having everything OF Him, the other having everything THROUGH Him, and the other having everything IN Him. We have to think of what the word “of” means in the given context and not get caught up in translation.
When we speak of “all things” being “of” the Father, we are saying, in some sense, they are FROM the Father—something that Augustine explicitly states in The Nature of the Good:
But “from Him” does not mean the same as “of Him.” For what is of Him may be said to be from Him; but not everything that is from Him is rightly said to be of Him…As in the case of a man who begets a son and makes a house, from himself is the son, from himself is the house, but the son is of him, the house is of earth and wood. (Chap 27)
When we speak of “all things” being “through” the Son, we are speaking that they come into being THROUGH Him in some sense. The sense we can gather, from Augustine’s Tractate 1 of John, is that it is through the Son’s design for creation that all things come into being:
But there is a word in the man himself which remains within [i.e. the Word is within the Father in the same way]; for the sound proceeds from the mouth. There is a word which is spoken in a truly spiritual manner, that which you understand from the sound, not the sound itself (Par 8).
If, then, on account of some great building a human design receives praise, do you wish to see what a design of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the Word of God?…by that Word were made all things. Hence, judge what a Word this is. (Par 9)
So, dearly beloved brethren, because the Wisdom of God, by which all things have been made, contains everything according to design before it is made, therefore those things which are made through this design itself are not immediately life, but whatever has been made is life in Him. (Par 17)
Logos literally means “reason” or “plan.” So, all things come FROM the Father THROUGH His “design”—the Logos/Son.
When “all things” are “in” the Spirit, it means that they are simultaneously joined to/connected to God but at the same time remain separate. In creation this pertains to God’s simultaneous transcendence and imminence:
[T]hough all things that He established are in Him, those who sin do not defile Him, of whose Wisdom it is said: “She touches all things by reason of her purity, and nothing defiled assails her.” Wisdom 7:24-25 For it behooves us to believe that as God is incorruptible and unchangeable, so also is He consequently undefilable. (The Nature of the Good, Chap 29)
Augustine does not yet tell us how this pertains to Pneumatological questions, but as we shall see, in all of Augustine’s illustrations of eternal origins the Spirit plays the role of “bridge” between the Persons so that they share the same essence.
In other words, the Spirit is the “Harmony” of the Persons’ relations, the “Love” of the Lover and the Beloved, the “Will that unites both,” the Mind and its Vision, etcetera. In other words, it is like the Intent/Desire that a Designer has to create/manifest His Design.
In On Christian Doctrine, Book I Augustine explains the Threeness yet Oneness in similar terms, noting how the different Persons are relationally different in what they provide to the Godhead as a whole:
The Trinity, one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things. Romans 11:36 Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit (Chap 5).
Hence, to envisage “the bridge” as a picture of transcendence (the Persons are infinitely separate Persons, they cannot be conflated) coinciding with imminence (they are one God and share their very essence) is understandable. Of course, it misses the mark, as we are comparing the infinite to finite creation, but it gives us an idea of Augustine’s thought either way.
I do not want to go too far and anticipate arguments found later in On the Trinity, but we can see in Augustine’s statement in On Christian Doctrine an idea which is at odds with the double procession of the Spirit. If all “three attributes [unity, equality, and unity/equality of specifically eternity, unchangeableness, majesty, and power] are all one because of the Father,” this means that the point of origin, from which the Son and Spirit possess these attributes, is the Father. In other words, the hypostatic origin of each Person is the Father. Their attributes are all one and are found principally in the Father. Therefore, the Spirit then can only derive His essence from the Father.
The Son’s role in this, implicitly, must not pertain to the origin of the Spirit in the Augustinian system. So, what is the Son’s role in the procession of the Spirit? It will be a long while before we get there.
Lastly, let me end my comments with the observation that Augustine is not very careful with his usage of the words “of,” “from,” “through,” and “in.” Though some issues with the words’ usage may be because of the translator, when I look into the Latin, it appears Augustine often uses them interchangeably (or scribes made small mistakes along the way). He did not view these terms as highly technical (presuming the best from our scribes). So, for my detractors, simply quoting Augustine using a word in an inconsistent sense is not going to disprove what I am contending here. Rather, the idea that Augustine is getting at is more important, and I submit, that this idea is clearly illustrated as we get further into On the Trinity.
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Orthodox Christian Theology 
We cannot venture by intellect alone to as it were in vain try to attempt to “Analyze” (“dissect” as it were) the Three Holy Persons of the Holy Trinity: There is no analogy to human persons or to human love, and Augustine erred in making the Holy Spirit the Love (Another Son of God) of the Father and the Son, a divine Grandson, an analogy to human love, which is in marriage to 2 human persons, male and female, producing children. The Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son, is not the love of the Father and Son; God loves Himself in a 3 way love, not in a 2 way FILIOQUE love of Father and Son together.
FYI, Palamas also said the Holy Spirit was “Love.” Please, be patient and see where I am going with this. It agrees with Photius.
If you are going to read Augustine, you need to follow Scripture, Saint Philip, to the Ethiopian in chariot Saint Djan Darada: Understandest what thou readest? How can I unless some man guide me? Who is going to guide you to properly understand Augustine? Unless you follow Fr. Azkoul’s cogent evidence in “On the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”, you may be making it up as you go along on Augustine. Why not try “Orthodox readings of Augustine” for a start, before you try to make sense of Augustine on your own. I have read Augustine’s De Trinitate in English translations, and I have found no evidence he held Filioque as a dogma which must be believed, or eternal damnation. He was just thinking out loud.
According to Saint Gregory Palamas, the Holy Spirit is the Pre-Eternal Joy of the Father and the Son
“36. Since the goodness which proceeds by generation from intellectual goodness as from a source is the Word [i.e. the Son of God], and since no intelligent person could conceive of a word without spirit, for this reason the Word, God from God, possesses also the Holy Spirit proceeding together with Him from the Father. But his is spirit not in the sense of the breath which accompanies the word passing through our lips (for this is a body and is adapted to our word through bodily organs); nor is it spirit in the sense of that which accompanies the immanent and discursive word within us, even though it does so incorporeally, for that too entails a certain notion of the mind which involves a temporal extension in conjunction with our word and requires the same intervals and proceeds from incompletion to completion. But that Spirit of the Supreme Word is like an Ineffable Love of the Begetter towards the Ineffably Begotten Word Himself. The beloved Word and the Son of the Father also experiences this Love towards the Begetter, but He does so inasmuch as He possesses this Love as proceeding from the Father together with Him and as resting co-naturally [Consubstantially or Co-Essentially) in Him. From the Word Who held concourse with us through the Flesh we have learned also the name of the Spirit’s distinct mode of coming to be from the Father, and that the Spirit belong not only to the Father but also to the Son. For He says, “The Spirit of Truth, Who Proceeds fro the Father,” in order that we may recognize not a Word alone but also a Spirit from the Father, Who is not begotten but Who Proceeds, but He belongs also to the Son Who possesses Him from the Father as Spirit of truth, wisdom, and word. For truth and wisdom constitute a word appropriate to the Begetter, a Word which rejoices together with the Father Who rejoices in Him, according to what He said through Solomon, “I was the One [i.e. Wisdom] Who rejoiced together with Him.” He did not say “rejoiced” but “rejoiced together with,” for this Pre-Eternal Joy of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit in that He is common to Them by mutual intimacy. Therefore, He is sent to the worthy from both, but in His Coming To Be He belongs to the Father Alone and thus He also Proceeds from Him alone in His manner of Coming To Be.
“37. Our mind too, since it is created in the image of God, possesses the image of this highest love in the relation of the mind to the knowledge which exists perpetually from it and in it, in that this love is from it and in it and proceeds from it together with the innermost word. The insatiable desire of men for knowledge is a very clear indication of the even for those who are unable to perceive their own innermost being. But in that archetype, in that absolutely and supremely perfect goodness wherein there is no imperfection, leaving aside the being derive from it, the Divine Love is indistinguishably identical in every way with that goodness. Therefore, this Love is the Holy Spirit and another name for the Paraclete and is so called by us, since He accompanies the Word, in order that we may recognize Him as Perfect in a Perfect and Proper Hypostasis, in no way inferior to the Substance of the Father but being indistinguishably identical with both the Son and the Father, though not in Hypostasis [i.e. Person]–a fact which indicates to us that He is derived from the Father by way of Procession in a Divinely fitting manner–and in order that we may revere One True and Perfect God in Three True and Perfect Hypostases [Persons], certainly not threefold, but simple. For goodness is not something threefold nor a triad of goodnesses; rather the Supreme Goodness is a Holy, August and Venerable Trinity flowing forth from Itself into Itself without change and abiding with Itself before the ages in Divinely fitting manner, being both unbounded and bounded by Itself Alone, while setting bounds for all things, transcending all things and allowing no beings independent of Itself.”
(The One-Hundred and Fifty Chapter of St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters 36 and 37)
Reading this, I think it is exceedingly obvious that Palamas both read and understood Augustine. The above is exactly my exegesis of Augustine’s 10-15th books of On the Trinity. I find this exciting and a little bit scary at the same time.
Thanks for posting this.
It’s a sin of propaganda,to try to twist blessed Saint Gregory Palamas’ holy Orthodox words to try and prove he was an Augustinian. See: God, History, and Dialectic: 4 volumes, Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D. (Oxoniens), see: A. Edward Siecienski. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. See: John Samuel Romanides. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. See: Azkoul, the Reverend Father Doctor Michael, Ph.D., & Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Saint Photius. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, Massachusetts: Studion Publishers, 1983. Also see, page 101, Exhibit A, The Holy Trinity and the Filioque. Eastern Orthodoxy Compared: Her Main Teachings & Significant Differences with Roman Catholicism & the Major Protestant Denominations. Reverend Father Constantine Mathews, Protopresbyter. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Light & Life Publishing, 2006. It is clear from Exhibit A that anyone who believes in Filioque does not believe in the Holy Trinity. My best friend, when I questioned the Filioque, said to me (he is a Protestantized Roman Catholic), he said to me: So you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity. [by implication: if you don’t believe in the Filioque]. This difference is so significant, it is a matter of belief in the Trinity itself. Hence the big schism. Saint Photius and Father Justin Popovich are right: Because of Filioque, there is humanism, atheism, in Western Europe, and as Photius wrote, Filioque implies even polytheism, binitarianism, and semi-Sabellianism. And a kind of Arian subordinationism. See: Father Andrew Phillips: Pre-Filioque and Post-Filioque Civilization (Europe), Orthodox England. See: Father Justin Popovich. Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ. God save us from Filioque, from the Augustinian errors.
It’s a sin of impiety to not cover our father’s nakedness and slander a saint of the Church by invoking the authority of the schismatic Old Calendarist Michael Azkoul, the Gnostic apostate Joseph Farrell and the ahistorical, xenophobic and crypto-Pelagian views of Fr. John Romanides.
You just contradicted your own standard of not covering nakedness of another by slandering the good reputation of Fr. Romanides and Fr. Azkoul. I find no reason to be sectarian and make this either/or. Apparently you have never read Romanides and Azkoul. They do not put blessed Augustine to shame, nor do they expose him to derision; I believe you haven’t accurately represented their views. Augustine was subject to error, as are we all; he was Orthodox in many ways, but on the question of John 15:26, Augustine presented some misleading or false opinions of his own, but he never intended them as dogma, so there is no fault to be found in him. This is exactly what Fr. Azkoul Dr. Farrell and Fr. Romanides were saying, and it is incorrect for you to slander them. God bless.
Dear Craig: It seems to ME if you are going to do justice to AUGUSTINE, you need to COMPARE his work on the Trinity to PHOTIOS (PHOTIUS), ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. AND read Fr. Michael Azkoul’s work, Holy Transfigurtaion Monastery, translators. Boston, Massachusetts: Studion Publishers, 1983. St. Nectarios Press and Book Center, Seattle, WA. God bless you. Scott Erie PA
Avoid Fr. Azkoul. Unbalanced.
Father Azkoul is not unbalanced or to be avoided. Calling him names is not logic, reason, or epistemological evidence. It is unreasoned ad hominem illogic. Show that he misrepresented any facts or got Augustine wrong in any way, with sufficient evidence from sufficient written or other sources. 1) It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. 2) People who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. Psychologist Hans J. Eysenck, Psychology is about people. I have actually read Azkoul, and he has proven by his words to know what he is talking about. You start with a conclusion, Azkoul is unbalanced: not with a careful, logical argument with facts and evidence, leading o an inescapable conclusion hat Azkoul is unbalanced. You start with a conclusion, which violates the rules of logical argument. The only legal precedent in America is innocent until proven guilty, and this applies to Fr. Azkoul, to you, and to me, and to everyone. God bless.
Have you read his correspondence with Fr. Seraphim Rose? I have as well. Fr. Seraphims Criticism is Fr. Azkoul fell on with the 80’s renovationist theology of Holy Transfigurarion Monastery in this sense- Imagining patristics is simply a modern reappraisal of the fathers, and not the reception from the Church of the correct WAY of reading the fathers.
For example, after many letters over years with Fr. Azkoul, most very kindly, Fr. Seraphim has this to say-
“Unfortunately, the result was something quite different, and the past two issues of Orthodox Christian Witness have contained articles by Father Michael Azkoul and by Holy Transfiguration Monastery which not only make statements very disrespectful towards the Metropolitans statement, but also set forth an ecclesiology which I believe is totally foreign to our Russian Church Outside of Russia: that the Orthodox Churches of Moscow and Constantinople (and presumably all the other Local Orthodox Churches, which are in communion with them) are without grace, that their “bishops are no bishops,” etc.
These are statements of such a serious kind that if they are allowed to go uncorrected they will create the strong impression that our Church has indeed become what our enemies would like to think it is: a sect.”
https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/
I do not care much for Fr. Seraphim Rose’s books except “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future”, and his view of UFOS in that is just speculative, theologoumena, not Orthodox doctrine, I feel there has not yet been a dogma, a fixed belief, on what is happening with these aerial phenomena, and it is just too facile to say “demons, demons”, as if that explains everything. There is more to nature and science than laymen Christian can comprehend. I this Joseph P. Farrell’s work is speculative too, but UFOS may have been built by man, the Nazis. Rose’s worst book is arguably “The Soul After Death”, and there has not been an ecumenical council to define EO Church dogma on the process of eternal life after death, and what occurs in the future to those who are saved by Christ. It seems to me I trust this book on Seraphim Rose. I have not yet found any valid criticism of anything Fr. Azkoul has written. This on Seraphim Rose; “Father Seraphim Rose and the Dogma of Redemption: A Study in Neo-Nestorianism. Synaxis Press, The Canadian Orthodox Publishing House, 37323 Hawkins Road, Dewdney, BC, Canada V0M-1H0 With articles by St. Philaret of New York, Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo), of New Ostrog, Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) of Montreal, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) of Manhattan, Bishop Varlaam (Novakshonoff) of Vancouver; Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Azkoul, and George Gabriel, D.Th. It seems there is still too much fundamentalist Protestantism left in some of Fr. Seraphim’s written works. I may be wrong. I am not a trained scientist, just a layman with what science is.
Very well. You said St. Philaret of New York. In context then, is Metropolitan Demetrius your metropolitan?
Metropolitan Hilarion, ROCOR, MP, Moscow Patriarchate, Patriarch KIRILL, Bishop John, Old Rite, Erie, PA, Argentina, Venezuela.
I never read Azkoul saying that, so I don’t know. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless he ha been ex-communicated, I don’t judge his theology to be heterodox. It seems to me we are all learning Orthodoxy, especially if we were not Orthodox before conversion. Protestant baggage is hard to delete, especially from Augustine. I think people go too far in dismissing Augustine’s mistakes as acceptable. I feel they are to be heartedly rejected, whatever our opinions of the man himself, I make no criticism of Augustine himself. God bless. God bless us all.
I believe you have not understood Augustine. You are trying to make him into a theologian. Because he was not a theologian, he did not teach the Orthodox Trinity. For that, his work is speculation. Which led to heresy, unfortunately, when you try to make it theology. Because he did not make it theology, he did not make it dogma, so, technically, it is not theological heresy, because it never rose in him to the level of dogma. To say Augustine’s philosophy was Orthodox would be false. I believe you should try and stop to try and justify Augustine as an Orthodox theologian, and to somehow with well intentions to reconcile him with the Orthodox Church. This is not possible. His philosophy contradicts Photius’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit and the Nicene Creed of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, 381 AD.
Beg questions much?
You are begging the question: How can you prove Augustine was thoroughly and completely Orthodox in his theology of the Trinity? He seems to have tried to “understand” the Trinity by philosophy and psychology, not by Scripture.
internetsecurity82
March 15, 2020 at 3:35 pm
Have you read his correspondence with Fr. Seraphim Rose? I have as well. Fr. Seraphims Criticism is Fr. Azkoul fell on with the 80’s renovationist theology of Holy Transfigurarion Monastery in this sense- Imagining patristics is simply a modern reappraisal of the fathers, and not the reception from the Church of the correct WAY of reading the fathers.
For example, after many letters over years with Fr. Azkoul, most very kindly, Fr. Seraphim has this to say-
“Unfortunately, the result was something quite different, and the past two issues of Orthodox Christian Witness have contained articles by Father Michael Azkoul and by Holy Transfiguration Monastery which not only make statements very disrespectful towards the Metropolitans statement, but also set forth an ecclesiology which I believe is totally foreign to our Russian Church Outside of Russia: that the Orthodox Churches of Moscow and Constantinople (and presumably all the other Local Orthodox Churches, which are in communion with them) are without grace, that their “bishops are no bishops,” etc.
These are statements of such a serious kind that if they are allowed to go uncorrected they will create the strong impression that our Church has indeed become what our enemies would like to think it is: a sect.”
https://thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-1961-1982/
I believe you have misread Michael Azkoul. Our ROCOR has said the Sergianists in Moscow were without grace because they collaborated with the communist USSR. This I believe was all Azkoul was saying, he was not attacking ROCOR. ROCOR has always took a stand against Communism. ROCOR is reconciled to MP as MP is no longer allied with Communism. Constantinople, however, is virtually Roman Catholic or ecumenist, and thinks of EP as an Orthodox Papacy. This is sad. This is a pseudo-Orthodox form of neo-Orthodox RC Papism.
“If anyone does not believe and call Augustine saint and blessed, he is anathema” (St. Gennadios Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople)
And then there’s the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils which count him among the Fathers. It’s very strange how obsessive some people are about St. Augustine despite of the fact that they are going against the Church in condemning him.
The Orthodox Church has neither condemned NOR commended Saint Augustine. The Church in a Holy Ecumenical Council attended by all Christians has never formally commended and fully and completely endorse all of Saint Augustine’s teachings. Even Augustine himself offered a Retractions of some of his earlier teachings. It is strange both how some blindly recommended him for all things, or without humility and reason condemn him outright without a fair hearing, reading. Both extremes it seems are an epistemological and doctrinal mistake. The Orthodox Church merely viewed his views as one other alternative and option among the plurality of the aspects of the doctrines of the Trinity, which shared common beliefs, but which had particular attributes, as in the Cappadocians and Athanasius: eventually the whole Church in 381 at Constantinople, condemned chiliasm, premillennialism, but earlier Saint Irenaeus held to a general form of chiliasm, premillennialism, for which he was never condemned nor supported by anyone.
Juan
March 19, 2020 at 11:29 am
It’s a sin of impiety to not cover our father’s nakedness and slander a saint of the Church by invoking the authority of the schismatic Old Calendarist Michael Azkoul, the Gnostic apostate Joseph Farrell and the ahistorical, xenophobic and crypto-Pelagian views of Fr. John Romanides.
I find no evidence that they have slandered Augustine. Nor do I find any evidence for your slander of Azkoul, Farrell, and Romanides. It is wrong to begin with a presumption of guilt, and pontificate that they are “wrong”, without a fair and balanced reasoned case that Fr. Azkoul, Dr. Farrell, and Fr Romanides made any doctrinal or theological error. I have not read all of Azkoul, Romanides, and Farrell. If you have read all of their works, I apologize. But you don’t just start with a conclusion, without evidence or a rational argument. Augustine has never been declared a heretic by any of these men, and if I am wrong on that, show me. Also, no Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church has put a de fide dogma necessary to be believed for salvation, with anathema maranatha for believing every word of Augustine’s writings. No Ecuemnical Council of Orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church, has declared Augustine’s Filioque theology to be Orthodox and dogma of the Church. Take care. God bless you. It is not appropriate to make such words as “Gnostic apostate” without giving Dr. Farrell a reason analysis for all of us to see your evidence. Without making such accusations beforehand.
Old Calendarism is Orthodoxy, by the way.
“The Orthodox Church has neither condemned NOR commended Saint Augustine.”
Simply not true.
“We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.”
Pope Agatho’s letter in the 6th EC refers to St. Augustine as blessed and used as an authority (as he is in the 5th).
Far more condemnable than St. Augustine is fr. Romanides who shapes your views on St. Augustine.
Simply not true. None of the 7 ecumenical councils endorsed Augustine’s “De Trinitate” with anathema maranatha excommunication if you do not believe Augustine’s model of the Trinity. What you said is false. They call him blessed and a saint, but they do not say his theology holds the same meaning of Photius’s “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”. Every Orthodox Christian must believe Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus, the three pillars of Orthodoxy. Augustine was not a pillar of Orthodoxy, but the other saints you mentioned are Orthodox. Augustine is listed among the saints for his piety, not for his theology of the Trinity, which was Orthodox in every other way except for his Filioquism. It took the Church many centuries to condemn Filioque. That is the truth. What I said was the truth.
My view of Augustine does not come from Fr. Romanides. You give no basis for your blanket condemnation of Azkoul and Romanides. Innocent until proven guilty by ROCOR or an all-endorsed ROCOR, etc. council, or an All-Orthodox Pan-Orthodox Ecumenical Council, accepted by all. You should give evidence of what is wrong in Azkoul and Romanides, if there is anything, not just poison the wells by presuming things about them for which you provide absolutely no evidence. I have read Azkoul, Romanides, and Farrell, and nothing I read contradicted Photius, Basil, Mark of Ephesus, Irenaeus, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, or any of the great fathers, nor did you even mention blessed Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and blessed Father Justin Popovich, or blessed Saint Nikolai Velimirovich, or any Orthodox theologian. Although I am new to Orthodoxy, I do not find any other Orthodox Christian who says what you say about Azkoul and Romanides. God bless them. God bless you, brother. Take care. My view of Augustine comes from Saint Photius, and like Saint Photius, I call Augustine blessed and a saint.
How strange that Old Calendar and True Orthodox schismatics (such as Azkoul) are such unquestioning Romanideans when he should embody everything wrong with “World Orthodoxy” today.
The point is that St. Augustine is a saint and a Father in the Orthodox Church, which is confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. You can ramble all you like and go back and forth, but I’m not interested in anything except this point.
How strange that Old Calendar and True Orthodox schismatics (such as Azkoul) are such unquestioning Romanideans when he should embody everything wrong with “World Orthodoxy” today.
The point is that St. Augustine is a saint and a Father in the Orthodox Church, which is confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. You can ramble all you like and go back and forth, but I’m not interested in anything except this point. Dear Pavlos: That is not a point. Your point is mean. You lack the virtue of truth and charity. And we are not schismatics. Your accusations are false. You should start with the truth (John 15:26, Acts 2:33) the next time you speak. And Orthodox Christian will go by Scripture and Tradition always, not by mean spirit and false accusations of schism. “In essential things unity, in questionable things freedom, in all things love” (Blessed Saint Augustine of Hippo [354-430]). God bless. PS The rambling is yours not mine. It’s your case of theological projection.
Pavlos: You are an unquestioning anti-Romanidean and Anti-Azkoulian. How strange you should simply label them “World Orthodoxy” without proof from all of their writings. Unless you have read everything they wrote, you have no basis for calling them heterodox. And all of Augustine. Have you even read all of them? I haven’t read all of Azkoul and Romanides and Augustine. So I have no logical basis to declare them defective. I know what I know about Augustine, and it is not defective. He was a brave soul, a good saint, who had some thinking problems, that’s all. We all “know in part, and say in part”, and “see through a glass, darkly”. We are all human. Augustine was well-written and got most things right. We should all be so learned as Augustine, Azkoul, and Romanides, all are. They are all better writers than me. I know from reading some of Augustine that his “De Trinitate” is speculation that does not support the Orthodox view of Filioque.