Roosh Hour #65 – Milo Yiannopoulos

St. Augustine’s theories on the “predestined elect,” never accepted by the greater Church to begin with, included the notion that a person could not truly know whether they were elect or not. Every Calvinist on the planet is very, very sure that they are among the elect.

St. Paul: “I judge not even myself.”
Predestination of the elect is Catholic doctrine. Calvin’s concept of double predestination is the problem.

@Grace through faith
I don't think Eastern Orthodoxy’s radical disdain for Augustinian theology is all that surprising. St. Augustine was anti-Pelagian in his writing, and if I'm not mistaken the East never went up against Pelagianism, and their theology often has a semi-Pelagian tint to it.

Quote from Fr. Adrian Fortescue:
The question of Grace and Predestination is interesting as showing the different attitude of mind in the two Churches. Although Pelagius was condemned at Ephesus side by side with Nestorius, this question never took hold of Eastern minds as it did those of the Latins. Their theological discussions were all Christological, ours Soteriological. St. Augustine, whose influence in the West has always been so great, remained almost unknown in the East, and their schools never produced any one like St. Augustine. [...] We may, perhaps, say that the Greek philosophical mind found the questions of Christology — of nature and person, unity and distinction — congenial, while the Latin mind, that had built up the legal system of the Empire, was naturally attracted to legal questions, such as those of predestination. In any case, the subtle system explained by St. Augustine in his de Bono perseverantiæ and de Prædestinatione sanctorum, the great field of discussion that he left to his Church, the endless controversy that has gone on amongst us ever since about the fine line between antecedent reprobation on the one hand and semi-Pelagianism on the other — all these things have never troubled Easterns at all. As always happens to people who have not gone far into the matter, they rather inclined to the opposite of St. Augustine's system, to loose and kindly principles which, if driven out of their vagueness, would become semi-Pelagian. St. John Chrysostom is an example of this. He did not intend to formally discuss the matter, he had never heard of Pelagianism, and was concerned to defend free will against Manichaeism. He does in many places maintain the need of grace for every good deed, but he also, inconsistently, in other places uses such expressions as " We must first choose what is right, and then God will do his part," expressions that would be inconceivable in Augustine. This want of definiteness about Grace and Predestination has always been a note of the Eastern Church. Long after the schism, in 1575, when the Tübingen Protestants sent an exposition of their belief to Jeremias II of Constantinople (1572-1579), the Patriarch in his answer to their Calvinism teaches pure semi-Pelagianism.


They also seem to think that Adam's sin is not the cause of any guilt in us, but only of punishment. I think, with St. Augustine, that original sin involves a shared or corporate guilt on the part of all humanity, whereas they seem to deny it. It's difficult to see what purification of soul, or washing away of sin, is taking place in infant baptism, if there is no stain of guilt contracted by original sin. I also agree with St. Augustine's idea of the mass damnata, that due to original sin mankind is a damned and damnable mass, unless God were to gratuitously bestow mercy.

I need to do a lot more reading, but I personally favor St. Augustine from what I've read. I think you have to be careful not to take a few of his statements out of context though, because it would be easy to fall into a Calvinist / Jansenist darkness and scrupulosity where you only think of the vileness of sin and God's righteous anger. I think St. Augustine's essential insight is the gratuitousness of grace, which when rightly understood, leads to a greater hope and love of God, not despair and excessive fear.

I don't know if I can take the Orthodox's objections all that seriously, which so often seem to be driven by polemical spite. Once you've decided to hate someone, you have to find justification for your hatred.

As a Traditional Roman Catholic, I don't necessarily find the Orthodox more impressive than say, the Evangelical Protestants, because they keep ancient things like Byzantine icons & Byzantine chant; what the Evangelicals keep is even more ancient and traditional than the Byzantine empire: the desire to spread the gospel. In fact, I could almost imagine myself having more respect for someone abandoning the Church for Evangelicalism rather than for Orthodoxy, for that reason; although leaving the True Church is a tragedy either way.
 
Last edited:

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Predestination is the wrong word to begin with. Again a translation error (one of many).
The correct word is pre-ordination, which doesn't abolish free-will. Any doctrine that abolishes free-will is demonic in origin.
 
Predestination is the wrong word to begin with. Again a translation error (one of many).
The correct word is pre-ordination, which doesn't abolish free-will. Any doctrine that abolishes free-will is demonic in origin.
Whatever. Tell that to Saint Augustine.
It’s “Prædestinatione de sanctorum” NOT “Præordinatione de sanctorum”.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Predestination of the elect is Catholic doctrine. Calvin’s concept of double predestination is the problem.

@Grace through faith
I don't think Eastern Orthodoxy’s radical disdain for Augustinian theology is all that surprising. St. Augustine was anti-Pelagian in his writing, and if I'm not mistaken the East never went up against Pelagianism, and their theology often has a semi-Pelagian tint to it.

Quote from Fr. Adrian Fortescue:


They also seem to think that Adam's sin is not the cause of any guilt in us, but only of punishment. I think, with St. Augustine, that original sin involves a shared or corporate guilt on the part of all humanity, whereas he seemed to deny it. It's difficult to see what purification of soul, or washing away of sin, is taking place in infant baptism, if there is no stain of guilt contracted by original sin. I also agree with St. Augustine's idea of the mass damnata, that due to original sin mankind is a damned and damnable mass, unless God were to gratuitously bestow mercy.

I need to do a lot more reading, but I personally favor St. Augustine from what I've read. I think you have to be careful not to take a few of his statements out of context though, because it would be easy to fall into a Calvinist / Jansenist darkness and scrupulosity where you only think of the vileness of sin and God's righteous anger. I think St. Augustine's essential insight is the gratuitousness of grace, which when rightly understood, leads to a greater hope and love of God, not despair and excessive fear.

I don't know if I can take the Orthodox's objections all that seriously, which so often seem to be driven by polemical spite. Once you've decided to hate someone, you have to find justification for your hatred.

As a Traditional Roman Catholic, I don't necessarily find the Orthodox more impressive than say, the Evangelical Protestants, because they keep ancient things like Byzantine icons & Byzantine chant; what the Evangelicals keep is even more ancient and traditional than the Byzantine empire: the desire to spread the gospel. In fact, I could almost imagine myself having more respect for someone abandoning the Church for Evangelicalism rather than for Orthodoxy, for that reason; although leaving the True Church is a tragedy either way.

You're really running around in circles here. So now Evangelical Protestant converts are more "impressive" to you than those who go to churches with Apostolic Succession?

I would hardly say Orthodox radically disdain Augustine. He is recognized as a Saint after all in the EO.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Whatever. Tell that to Saint Augustine.
It’s “Prædestinatione de sanctorum” NOT “Præordinatione de sanctorum”.
Well, St Augustine was wrong.
You do realize that Orthodox Saints are not perfect? They can make translation errors (and St Augustine made many of those).
It was pointed out to you earlier, but you chose to ignore it.

I repeat the correct word (in the original Greek New Tastement) is pre-ordained.
 
You're really running around in circles here. So now Evangelical Protestant converts are more "impressive" to you than those who go to churches with Apostolic Succession?
Yes. Schism is an abominable crime and, let's not have any illusions, Orthodox are no better than Protestants. I find that Eastern Orthodox are generally nasty individuals who are driven by lust, pride, and spite, not to mention dabbling in the Occult; whereas Protestants are usually good people who are well-meaning and sincere, just misinformed. And Catholics should avoid being seduced by the Orthodox merely because they have a lot of “old stuff” in their so-called churches.
I would hardly say Orthodox radically disdain Augustine. He is recognized as a Saint after all in the EO.
Actually many Eastern Orthodox don’t even consider Augustine to be a saint at all, but as a heresiarch, as I’ve already shown.
 
Last edited:

messaggera

Kingfisher
Woman
Actually many Eastern Orthodox don’t even consider Augustine to be a saint at all, but as a heresiarch, as I’ve already shown.

Saints are always an interesting topic when denominations are in conflict.

Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone was canonized by the Pope - Saint Fancis of Assisi. Very interesting individual and story of this Saint embraced by Catholics.
 
You have shown nothing of the sort.
Despite these acclamations, most of his works were not translated into Greek until circa 1360 by Demetrios Cydones and some Orthodox Christians identify errors in his theology—especially those in his Triadology which gave rise to the Filioque addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—and regard him as being one of the major factors in the Great Schism between the Church in the East and in the West. Thus, there are those among the Orthodox who regard Augustine as a heretic, although there has never been any conciliar condemnation of either him or his writings.

More moderate views regard Augustine as (1) a theological writer who made too many mistakes to be included among the Church Fathers but still a saint, (2) a theological writer among many in the early Church (but not a saint), and (3) a theological writer with, perhaps, the title "Blessed" before his name. It should be noted, however, that the Orthodox Church has not traditionally ranked saints in terms of "blessed" or "saint" (i.e., suggesting that the latter has a greater degree of holiness than the former). Saint "rankings" are usually only differences in kind (e.g., monastics, married, bishops, martyrs, etc.), not in degree.

There are at least two books explicitly dealing with the issue of Augustine's place in Orthodoxy: The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church by Fr. Seraphim Rose (ISBN 0938635123), which is generally favorable toward Augustine, citing his importance as a saint in terms of his confessional and devotional writings rather than in his theology, and The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church by Dr. Fr. Michael Azkoul (ISBN 0889467331), which tends to see Augustine as the root of all Western Christendom's errors. (There is also a condensation of this book into a booklet titled Augustine of Hippo: An Orthodox Christian Perspective.) The former's cover (shown on right) includes a traditional Greek icon of Augustine, where he is labelled as "Ό Αγίος Αυγουστίνος"—"Saint Augustine."

Another view is expressed by Christos Yannaras, who descibed Augustine as "the fount of every distortion and alteration in the Church's truth in the West" (The Freedom of Morality, p. 151n.).
Augustine's heresies have been the source for the inauguration and consolidation of the separation of the heterodox from Orthodoxy. We have already shown how his Filioque heresy initiated the fall of the Western Church. The two other heresies which energized the momentum behind the West's migration from salvation as revealed by the Orthodox Church was their adoption of Augustine's doctrine of "Original Sin" and theory of "irresistible grace.

...the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception.
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/Xaustin-hip.html:
Thus some Orthodox consider him not a saint, but an heresiarch.
From the Orthodox point of view, St. Augustine's legacy is controversial. In the West, it would be impossible to overestimate the impact of his writings, starting in his own lifetime, and by the VI Century he was regarded as one of the greatest Latin Fathers, revered by Western saints whose Orthodoxy has never been questioned in the East. On the other hand, nearly all of those ideas which are most distinctively Augustinian -- in particular his views on the Trinity, on original sin, and on predestination -- have subsequently been rejected by the Orthodox Church,and are among the distinguishing points between Eastern and Western Christianity. Thus some Orthodox consider him not a saint, but an heresiarch.
 

GuitarVH

Woodpecker
Orthodox Inquirer
Orthodox are no better than Protestants. I find that Eastern Orthodox are generally nasty individuals who are driven by lust, pride, and spite, not to mention dabbling in the Occult; whereas Protestants are usually good people who are well-meaning and sincere, just misinformed.

Alright, this freak has gone too far. Please leave the forum now.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Yes. Schism is an abominable crime and, let's not have any illusions, Orthodox are no better than Protestants. I find that Eastern Orthodox are usually very nasty individuals who are driven by pride and spite, whereas Protestants are usually good people who are well-meaning and sincere, just misinformed. And Catholics should avoid being seduced by the Orthodox merely because they have a lot of “old stuff” in their so-called churches.

I sense a chip on your shoulder.. I haven't found that to be the case at all. As I have said being someone coming from Presbyterian/Episcopalian background, I found a majority of parishioners of mainline Protestants/Catholics to be very kind and wonderful just like I have in the Orthodox Church. I haven't ran into any "nasty people" in any of the Orthodox Jurisdictions I visited before finding a home church in the Antiochian Church. I did find a lot of nasty people in the Evangelical Southern Baptist Church where hell fire and brimstone sermons were given about how every single sect of Protestantism was wrong, and how Catholics were evil and demonic and all sorts of other nonsense that no-one with any serious intellectual curiosity could accept.

You may need to get off the forums as I suspect that a lot of this sentiment comes from the desire to bicker with others in the world of the internet. The bolded part looks like a confession of your own guilt/behavior by projection and I sense a chip on your shoulder.

Actually many Eastern Orthodox don’t even consider Augustine to be a saint at all, but as a heresiarch, as I’ve already shown.
Actually the EO Church does consider him a saint. So if someone says they do not, and claim to be an Orthodox... well they wouldn't be in keeping with The Church. It's been enumerated that there were issues with some of the teachings of Augustine, and that he was wrong, from an Orthodox Perspective, on several things... but that does not mean he is not recognized by a saint.

The argument is akin to me saying "Many Catholics don't consider abortion to be a sin" with out showing anywhere were the Catholic Church states anything other than that it is a sin.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
Russian history is full of these quasi-Protestant movements:

If by "full of these" you mean "occasionally marked by obscure schismatic groups that number a few thousand and had virtually no influence, not even remotely comparable to protestantism in Western lands", then sure.

You're obviously just on this forum to troll the Orthodox members. It's not going to work.

It's interesting to me that the sedes only flocked here to start causing trouble after Roosh joined ROCOR. Maybe there were a few before this, but they weren't of the trolling variety seen lately, and didn't seem to care that he was in the Armenian church which is as equally not-Roman Catholic as the Orthodox Church.
 
Last edited:

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
It's interesting to me that the sedes only flocked here to start causing trouble after Roosh joined ROCOR. Maybe there were a few before this, but they weren't of the trolling variety seen lately, and didn't seem to care that he was in the Armenian church which is as equally not-Roman Catholic as the Orthodox Church.
Yes it is a recent occurrence. They are out of control and making Catholics look bad.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox

It doesn't matter what some Orthodox think, they're wrong. Just as some Catholics think it's okay to hold clown mass, and to put on dance acts in front of the altar. It's irrelevant.

The following is taken from Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson's latest book: In Regione Caecorum Rex est Luscus: Essays on Medieval Political Philosophy, (2nd Chapter, St Augustine as an Orthodox Church Father: Confronting the Philosophical Ineptitude of his Critics)

Augustine rejects the filoque as a theological doctrine. However, since he lived before this became an earth-shattering issue, he is loose with his language. In brief, Augustine olds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (as a matter of generation), but through the Son (as a matter of history). This is the well known distinction between the eternal and temporal procession of the Spirit. This is a common patristic position held by St John of Damascus and others. Augustine writes.

As for the Son to be born is to be from the Father, so for the Son to be sent is to be known in his origin from the Father. In the same way, as for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is to proceed from the Father, so to be sent is to be known in his procession from the Father. What is more, we cannot deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.... I cannot see what he could otherwise have meant when, breathing on the faces of the disciples, the Lord declared: Receive the Holy Spirit. (cited from Augustine, the Trinity and the Filoque. Vol 3 I Believe in the Holy Spirit by Yves Congar 1983)

Of course, Augustine means this in a relative sense. No Orthodox man denies that Christ "sent" the Holy Spirit in this manner. This is not, however, an absolute relationship. It is not a relationship from eternity, but a matter of temporal succession. Augustine qualifies this in the following passage:

There is no need for anxiety about the absence, it would seem of a term that corresponds to him and points to his correlative. We speak of the servant of the master or of the master of the servant, of the Son of the Father or of the Father of the Son, since these terms are correlative. but here we cannot speak in that way. We speak of the Holy Spirit of the Father we do not speak in the reverse sense of the Father to the Holy Spirit; if we did, the Holy Spirit would be taken to be his Son. In the same way, we speak of the Holy Spirit of the Son, but not of the Son of the Holy Spirit, since in that case, the Holy Spirit would be seen as his Father (ibid)

This is a denial of the Filoque as an ontological property. That is, as an "eternal" procession rather than the gradual building up of the Church over time. Christ sends the Holy Spirit in the manner above, but this is not the nature of their relationship in eternity. Since Augustine wants to preserve the "correlation" he has two relationships. The Father to the Son, and the Father to the Spirit. This is amplified here.

The Father is not possessed in common as Father by the Son and the Holy Spirit, because he is not the Father of the two. The Son is not possessed in common as the Son by the Father and the Holy Spirit, because he is not the Son of the two. But the Holy Spirit is possessed by the Father and the Son, because he is the one Spirit of the two. (From Augustine's De Trinitate, cited from Congar, 1983)

Keep in mind that Augustine recited the Liturgy of St Ambrose that does not use the filoque in the creed. In fact, none of them could have at the time. The broader point is that the Latin language, as it has been pointed out many times, does not have a vocabulary for such a discussion. The Latin "procedere" means, of course, "to proceed." However, it does not in the least imply any kind of ontological "creation" in or out of time. Using this infinitive means that Augustine can speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the practical sense mentioned above, not relating at all to the ontological "procession" the Greeks stressed so powerfully.

Dr Johnson goes on to relate St Augustine's writings to St Gregory Palamas, then writes how St Augustine doesn't believe in Pre-destination as he wrote in defence of free will, and the two are mutually exclusive. He then proceeds on to show that there's nothing wrong with St Augustine's conception of Original Sin. He concludes the chapter by saying

In brief, St Augustine was fully Orthodox in his theology both relative to the Trinity and free will. The sheer size of his writings make any deep analysis a life-long project, so an essay like this (or his opponents') can't pretend to do it justice. Cherry-picking quotes is as common as it is dishonest.

The whole book is fantastic, the only shame is that it's only available on Amazon.

 

Barry

Chicken
this was a good conversation between two authentic men and i enjoyed it a lot. have either of you fella's heard of James True? you can find him on youtube and he has the most facinating theology regarding god. i urge you to check him out if you have the time. take care both of you.
 
Top