Who is Fr Michael Azkoul and what is his theological background and training? Is he recognized as a reliable and good theologian?
Who is Fr Michael Azkoul and what is his theological background and training? Is he recognized as a reliable and good theologian?
Father Michael Azkoul lives in a suburb of St. Louis Missouri. He was for many years a priest of the Antiochean Archdiocese, but left over what I remember to have been issues concerning ecumenism. He was then received into the Russian Church Abroad, where he remained until the Panteleimonite Schism in the late 80s.
While possessed of a PhD., Father. Michael is not an effectual theologian in that he is basically interested in attacking Blessed Augustine. In or around 1987, he printed what was to been the first volume of his "History of the Orthodox Church." Those who reviewed the book, especially Archbishop Mark of Munich, found it to be totally unsuitable as a serious history due to its many blatant inaccuracies and obvious evidence of lack of scholarship, research and erudition. It was basically an all out effort to discredit the Blessed Augustine, and is posssessed of the greatest number of quotation marks to be found in any book published in at least the last century. It was not a success, and has never been reprinted. After it failure, its sponsor, Holy Dormition Skete in Colorado dropped the projest. I know of no further publishing efforts since that time.
While upon rare occasion Father Michael has authored a few very good articles and I believe that was many years ago, he really has no standing as a theologian, scholar, educator, or author. He also has a most unfortunate lack of knowledge of litrugics. He has not been employed for many years, but does maintain a sort of family parish. He is very strict, and if his son cannot be present for liturgy, none is served, because Father will not permit his presbytera or daughter-in-law to read or sing during Divine Services.
Whatever his scholastic shortcomings might be, he is a very kind and gentle man and his presbytera is a lovely Christian woman. His son Paul is an accomplished iconographer. As far as I know, he is still a member of H.O.C. N.A.. That is all I can tell you. I first met father Michael in 1975, but not have seen him or had contact with him since 1988.
Fr. A.
Dear Alvin,
in all fairness, what I posted are basically recollections. I just went to Google, and found several articles and some books. However, I find my self still maintaining that he is not recognized as an Orthodox theologian of substance. Someone like Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos is one to whom we should look.
Perhaps you might read some of his writing and share your impressions with us. An ally of Archimandrite Panteleimon of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, he became involved in the controversy of the late 70s which pitted Boston against the Platina Fathers in regards to Evolution, The Shroud of Turin, and the Toll-Houses.
This was a very difficult time for converts in the U.S.; the Metropolia had just become the OCA, the Synod was highly regarded under the guidance of Metropolitan Phiolaret, and Father Panteleimon and Father Nikitas Palassis in Seattle were constantly attacking the Fathers in Platina. Father Panteleimon and his followers hold to the view that all New Calendar Churches are devoid of Grace, while the Synod never held to such a view, yet they were in the same Church. Father Panteleimon built a virtual diocese -within- a- diocese, and his followers, including priests and monastics, were in obedience to him, and not their local Russian bishop.
Father Michael very much supported Fr.*Panteleimon's views and those of Lev Puhalo, now Archbishop Lazar, who was defrocked because of his heretical teachings on the soul after death.
Fortunately, all these people are gone, including Fr. Herman, and the Russian Church Abroad is moving closer to negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, whose theological views we share.
Fr. A.
Wow!
Very intresting history... but I'll stick with the lives of the saints, instead of a few heretics and schismatics.
In Christ
Daniel
Actually Father Pantelemion, Father Neketas Plassias and Fr. Azkoul are very much still around. Whether one considers Fr. Azkoul a theologian of any substance depends on whether you're a new calendeist or Old Calenderist, whether you believe in ecumenism or not.
Fr. Azkoul is an Old Calendarist and opposes ecumanism as well as the heretical beiefs of Augustine that are directly opposed to Orthodox teaching on the issue of Ancestral sin.
Therefore, whether any of the fathers listed above are of substance or not depends on where you stand on the issues. read more on Fr. Azkoul and I think you'll discover alot more information about him that may help you decide for yourself about his credentials that I personally believe are very exceptional.
I think we are turning this into a nasty debate, which is unfortunate. To call Saint Augustine a heretic goes too far. His teachings are certainly flawed, but those flaws were due to ignorance not rejection of Orthodox doctrine. At the same time, any Orthodox theologian will admit that no one single Church Father is 'infallible' and all have expressed views that are not totally correct. That is why we look at the common teachings of the Church Fathers. Father John Romanides very well exposes the flaws in Saint Augustine's teachings (www.romanity.org), but never calls him a heretic. The problem lies in Latin Church's attitude toward him. He became, after his repose, the main theologian of the Latin Church. They failed to understand his writings in the light of the Church Fathers, because they had lost the grace of discernment.
The reality remains that he is included among the ranks of Saints in the Orthodox Church. This has been the case long before ecumenism or the new calendar came about. Most of his writings are Orthodox, it just seems that today, certain theologians prefer to focus on his writings that are flawed. So, I don't really see a contradiction between Fr.John Romanides' and Fr. Seraphim Rose's writings on Saint Augustine, because they are focusing on different things. However, I do think Fr.Michael Azkoul does go too far in calling Saint Augustine a heretic. The Church declares who is and is not a heretic, not individuals.
This post edited after posting by M.C. Steenberg, 09-05-2006 at 09:06 AM
Dear Edward:
I must disagree with you on Agustine being a recognized Saint in The Holy Orthodox Church. This is not true. Now, Augustine is called Blessed Augustine and was a very pious man, but some of his views were heretical. You want to say flawed that's fine, but his views on Ancestral sin were wrong, VERY wrong.
Clement of Alexandria was a very pious man, but he was no Saint because some of his views were heavy with Greek Pagan Philosophy.
I mean no disrespect to Augustine, but Fr. Azkoul is correct as Fr. Romanidies is as to the mistakes in Augustine's Theology. Whether Fr. Azkoul goes to far in his assessment of Augustine is for each of us to decide.
Dear Peter,
If Augustine is not recognized as a Saint in the Orthodox Church, why is He included in the listing of Saints on Orthodox liturgical calendars? You will find him mentioned not only on the Saint Herman's (Platina) Calendar, but also on other ones in America, Greece, Russia, etc. Secondly, if he is not considered a Saint, why is it that Bishop Augustinos of Florina (Church of Greece), bears His name. There have been icons and frescos painted of him since before the 20th century.
Here is some further information I found: Pope Vigilius [†555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among "...our Fathers," of the "blessed Augustine" for his willingness to retract and correct various among his "writings" and "sayings" ("Decretal Letter," The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).
We can also note that such historical luminaries as St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome (†604), St. Photios the Great (†895), and St. Mark of Ephesus (†1444 or 1445), while citing him, in specific instances, with certain qualifications, nonetheless also paid homage to his sanctity: In his letter, "To Innocent, Prefect of Africa," Pope Gregory calls St. Augustine "blessed" (see Epistles, 10.37 [NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. XIII]), and St. Photios refers to him as the "divine Augustine" ("Augoustinon ton hieron") (see his "Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia," Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CII, col. 809D), as does St. Mark in the thirty-fourth of his syllogistic chapters in defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Latins at the Council of Florence ("Syllogistika kephalia pros Latinous" ) . (While it may be argued, here, that many Eastern Church Fathers held the Blessed Augustine in high esteem simply because they had not read his writings, both St. Photios and St. Mark, once more, were at least familiar enough with his works to evaluate, qualify, and, more significantly, praise his theological discourses.)It is also in their universal recognition by the Orthodox Church that the verity of their witness is ultimately established. It is, thus, worthy of note that our Father among the Saints Augustine is cited as "shining forth most resplendently among the African Bishops" in the Acts of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod (553) ("Ruling of the Synod," P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrasancta Concilia, 1671, Vol. V). Similarly, in his epistle to the Fathers of the same Synod, St. Justinian (†565) includes, in his references to the "holy Fathers," Augustine among such luminaries as Sts. Athanasios (†373), Basil (†379), Gregory the Theologian (†389), Gregory of Nyssa (†395), John Chrysostomos (†407), Cyril of Alexandria (†444), et al. (ibid.).
No one is questioning whether Saint Augustine held certain views and understandings that were not Orthodox. However, most of his writings are Orthodox. Second, from the above cited information, not only did the Church NOT condemn him as a heretic but has, at several occasions lauded him.
It is not for us, Fr. Michael Azkoul, or any Old Calendarist group to deem Saint Augustine a heretic, rather it is the work of the Church. It seems to me that the Church has already spoken.
Dearb Edward:
I appriciate your response and will investigate further. What I can say for now is this. I was always taught to call Augustinne as "Blessed Augustine" and that it was always taught to me that he was NOT a formally listed Saint of the Orthodox Church.
Second, as a Greek Orthodox Christian both Old and New Calendarist views reside within the Greek Community, both here and abroad. I was baptised in a New Calendar Church, but both of my parents had strong leanings to the OC. The separation between New and Old In the Greek Communit is not as clear cut as you might think.
Further the rest of the Orthodox Church follows the Old Calendar NOT THE NEW, except for the Greek Church under the jurisdiction of the Partiarch of Constantionple.
Finally, many Monks of Mt. Athos would disagree with you as I have met many from the Holy Mountain that will call Agustine "Blessed" but not a Saint. However, I will investigate the issue and get back to you on it. I do not want to mis-inform you or anyone else.
However, Fr. Azkoul was assaulted on this discussion page and I came to his defense. Why? because many of us agree with his writings and still harbour great respect not just for the Old Calendar, but what it represents.
Many OC people continue to feel that this was a western interpolation upon the Greek Church by Greek nationalist at the time The Republic of Greece wanted to join the nations (i.e. Western Nations) of the world and pushed for certain culteral and religious reforms that were against the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
If you disagree with the OC fine, if you disagree with Fr. Azkoul fine, however bear in mind that many and I mean MANY church Fathers were castigated and looked down upon by other Church Fathers as well.
We acknowledge the brilliance of Origin, but know that he was heretical. He acknowledge the moral backbone of Tertullian, but know that he was heretical. Even the Great Stain Athanasios, if his views are taken to the extreme (i.e his theology that formed the basis for the concept of Theosis) can be heretical.
I have never said that Blessed Augustine was not a good Christian man, or that he was not an intellectual giant, but his views on Ancestral Sin and the nature of man are Incorrect! Babies are NOT the limbs of Satan! Is this not a heretical teaching from the Orthodox point of view? Yes it is. Did Blessed Augustine ever renounce this view? No he did not.
In addition, understand this. The Roman Catholic Church has many wonderful qualities and great moral and Dogmatic christian teachings, but it is still heretical. It is a heretical Church.
Do we ignore the filique? Do we ignore Papal infalliability? According to your logic we should. If Augustine, or the Roman Church for that matter, was 99% correct it does not matter if He, or the western church, was wrong this one little time.
However, I say to you that this teaching of Blessed Augustine has perpetuated a heretical view about the nature of man, has obscured the salvation that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has given us, has made man more retched than he really is and distorts, if not destroys, man's participation in his own Salvation as clearly taught to us in St. James Epistle as found in the New Testament.
In other words, upon reading Blessed Augustine, Martin Luther got it right. As Luther taught, Man cannot be saved through anything he does it is purely a gift from God through our Faith alone in Christ. It was within the teachings of Blessed Agustine that lay dormant the coming of the protestant movement, which Luther instituted upon reading Blessed Augastine's writings in conjunction with St. Paul's Epsitle to the Romans, to the exclusion of St. James' Epistle. Why do you think that out of all the ancient fathers of the Church Protestants quote him the most?
If this is not heretical I do not know what is.
However, in all fairness I will check your allegations and report back. I was only telling you what I was taught by my spiritual fathers, and what our Orthodox faith consists of as taught to me by my parents, especially my mother.
Further, Blessed Augustine's name has come up several times in my conversations with both lay Greek Orthodox Christians in Greece and Priests and he was not viewed nor referenced very favorably. This is all I know, but I will look into this more closely.
Thank you again for your response, and if I said or implied anything that was hurtful or mean I apologize and ask for your prays and forgiveness.
Yours In Christ
Peter
Dear Edward:
I have come across a few things.
First, I have confirmed that Augustine is called blessed in the Orthodox Church, Not a Saint.
Second, yes he is listed in the liturgical calendar of the church, this I know, but I cannot find how often he is celebrated, at least in the East.
Third, your previous statements about Augustine came from Archmandrite Ephraim. If this is the same person who has done the provisional translations of Orthodox Liturgical books on the net and is based out of England I now understand a few other things.
Such as, Archmandrite Ephraim, is not recognized as a priest on the Holy Mountain of Mt. Athos because he has failed to undergo triple baptismal emmersion. A great controversy surrounded him while he was on the Holy Mountain with even the Patriarch of Constantinople not being able to force the Monks to recognize him as a priest. Therefore, Archmandrite Ephraim left the Holy Mountain, I believe under protest.
However, there seems to be a split within the Orthodox Church as to the "reverence" to be given to Blessed Augustine. Those opposed to the New Calendar and Ecumanism give Augustine no regard at all. Those under the New Calendar and in favor of Ecumanism tend to give Augustine, especially among the Russions and Ukranians, too much reverance and do accord him the title of Saint.
The Orthodox Church of America does call him a saint, but downplay his significance and are very detailed on what things Blessed Augustine got wrong.
The Greek Orthodox Archdioces officially recognize him as a Saint, but many in the Archdioces are quick to criticize this move and state he should only be called Blessed. There is a clear distinction between "Blessed" and "Saint" in the Orthodox Church and in its liturgical celebrations.
So, I hold to my original position. Augustine is called Blessed not a Saint, except depending on your point of view. Kind of like Fr. Azkoul, being viewed as relevant or not, which was my point from the very beginning.
With the Love of Christ
Peter
Dear Edward and Peter,
Here is a good link on the subject matter.
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine...ugustine8.html
Dear Matthew:
Thank you for the article. It is in keeping with what I have always been taught. Orthodox can call him Blessed, but not a Saint. Thank you for the Article.
In addition, it also vindicates Fr. Azkoul's teachings and positions, at least for me. However, as I stated before, it depends on your point of view. Thank you againt Matthew.
Yours In Christ
Peter
Dear Peter and Edward,
I think that St. Photios gives us a good example to follow particularly in reference to the Blessed Augustine. It seems to me that St. Photios was basically saying to the Latin's don't mess with Augustine's, Jerome's and Ambrose's writings to promote your ideas that are not in accordance with what the Orthodox Church has already said in the Ecumenical Councils, particularly when some of their writings out of human weakness may be in conflict Holy Writ or what the Church has already accepted in council. The problem is that if the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical councils are changed or adjusted significantly and not just fine tuned so to speak then the authority or veracity of any of the Orthodox councils becomes open for debate or questioning and in error which they are not. This of course would imply what is stated in an Orthodox council is not absolute even if the Bishop of Rome states that it is.
Part of The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion
VII
So then the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Symbol of Faith, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).
There is a strange sort of thinking that goes on with the Latin's which seems to be that truth is adjustable from time to time. The Council of Florence comes to my mind.
Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino, backed by the Council and proclaimed infallible the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church.
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
At the time that the above was written it seems to me that the Orthodox had been considered to be schismatics from a Latin perspective. The strangeness of such a statement is that the uniates who accepted Latin understandings ask for the intercessions of the Saints of the Orthodox who the Latin's considered to be schismatics. For the Latin's things have changed again for nowadays anyone can be saved and Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic infallible bull is either not infallible or the Orthodox are united with the Pope of Rome even if we are not in communion with Rome in some unknown way we are with the Latin's and we just don't know it even if we don't want to be. So much for free will. The Latin's think this has to be because Peter has the keys.
Sorry if I have digressed.
In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin
Dear Matthew:
You did ramble, but it was a very good ramble. A very good ramble. Thank you again for the information. and...
Thank you Edward for your patience with me. I apoligize if I did offend you in any way.
Yours In Christ
Peter
Dear Peter
It is not just the Greek church (apart from Athonite monasteries) that uses the Gregorian calendar, but also the churches of Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria and Cyprus, and probably others. The Slavic churches (with the exception of the Bulgarian) continue to use the Julian calendar. Also it must be remembered that some monastic communities in Athos can be VERY conservative and implacable when it comes to matters of calendar use and recognition of converts by anything other than triple immersion baptism. Given the recent flareup of the long-running controversy at Esphigmenou, it would be no surprise to hear that someone like Archimandrite Ephraim was given a hard time.
Dear Peter,
Again, I am not saying that Saint Augustine was a great theologian. I admit that he had doctrinal flaws, but it was more out of misunderstanding and ignorance rather than a conscious rejection of Church dogma.
I am quite familiar with the Greek Old Calendar Movement, having been in it until 1998, when our Metropolitan, Paisios, went under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As an Orthodox Christian, I have always followed the Julian Calendar. Now, living in Russia, I continue to do so. My source was not Father Ephrem in England, but rather materials taken from www.orthodoxinfo.com, which is run by a layman affiliated with the Russian Church Abroad and the Old Calendar Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. I am using the arguments of Father Seraphim Rose, who was a adamant defender of traditional Orthodoxy and authored the book, "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church."
The point is that we should avoid extremes. We can go too far one way and call him a 'doctor' of the Church or we can dismiss him as a vicious heretic. Neither is right. The Church, in none of her Ecumenical nor Local Synods, has seen fit to condemn Bishop Augustine of Hippo as a heretic. A much more balanced criticism of Saint Augustine's writings has been done by Father John Romanides. There is so much more to point out but my time has run out. Until next time....
I just thought I would post this letter, written by Father Seraphim Rose to Father Michael Azkoul:
June 13/26, 1981
St. Tryphillius of Cyprus
Dear Father Michael [Azkoul],
Christ is in our midst!
Thank you for your letter. I am frankly happy to see someone with your views on Blessed Augustine willing to do something besides hit him (and all of us who have any respect for him) over the head.
You ask for cooperation on what seems to be a "thorough study" of Blessed Augustine. I really wonder about the value of such a study—for someone who wishes to expose the source of "Western influence" in Orthodox theology, this detailed analysis itself seems so terribly Western!
If your attempt is to find out Augustine's real place in the Orthodox Church, I think your approach is all wrong. It assumes that "we moderns" are the ones who can do this—that we can "know better" than anyone in the Orthodox past. I don't think so. I have a deep distrust of all of us who are writing on theological subjects today—we are more under "Western influence" than anyone before, and the less we are aware of it the more obnoxious our "Westernism" becomes. Our whole cold, academic, and often disdainful approach to theology is so remote from the Fathers, so foreign to them. Let us admit this and try not to be so presumptuous (I speak for myself also).
I have no time (and probably not the sources) to find out how much St. Photios or St. Mark read of Blessed Augustine. I would suspect that St. Photios had read rather little apart from the texts under dispute, and St. Mark probably more (in fact, St. Mark can probably be shown to be under Augustine's "influence" in some way if you search hard enough! —his disciple Gennadius, after all, was the translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek). Undoubtedly their respect for Augustine was based on the general respect for him in the Church, especially in the West from the very beginning.
And this brings up the only real question I think you might fruitfully research: what did the Western Church think of Blessed Augustine in the centuries when it was Orthodox? The West knew him as one of their own Fathers; it knew his writings well, including the disputes over them. What did the Western Fathers who were linked with the East think of him? We know St. Cassian's opinion—he challenged (politely) Augustine's teaching on grace while accepting his authority on other questions. St. Vincent of Lerins' argument is more with the immoderate followers of Augustine. In neither case was there talk of "heresy," or of someone who was totally un-Orthodox. St. Faustus of Lerins—if anyone, he should be an enemy of Augustine, but the evidence seems to the contrary. St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Gregory the Great-admirers of Augustine, while not following his exaggerations on grace. I don't mention some of the enthusiastic followers of Augustine.
There is room for research here in Latin sources, but no research can overthrow the obvious fact (it seems to me)—the Orthodox West accepted him as a Father. If he's really a "heretic," then doesn't the whole West go down the drain with him? I'm sure you can find enough signs of "Western mentality" in Gregory the Great, for example, to disqualify him as a Father and Saint in the eyes of many of today's Orthodox scholars—he also is accepted in the East on the basis of his general reputation in the West, and on the basis of his "Dialogues" (which I'm sure a few would now question as having a right to be called an Orthodox book).
I think the "heresy hunt" over Augustine reveals at least two major faults in today's Orthodox scholars who are pursuing it:
1. A profound insecurity over their own Orthodoxy, born of the uncertainties of our times, the betrayal of ecumenism, and their own purely Western education. Here Augustine is a "scapegoat"—hit him hard enough and it proves how Orthodox you yourself really are!
2. An incipient sectarian consciousness-in attacking Augustine so bitterly one not only attacks the whole Orthodox West of the early centuries, but also a great many Orthodox thinkers of recent centuries and today. I could name you bishops in our Church who think like Augustine on a number of points-are they, then, "heretics" too? I think some of our anti-Augustinians are coming close to this conclusion, and thus close to schism and the formation of an "Orthodox" sect that prides itself on the correctness of its intellectual views....
I myself am no great admirer of Augustine's doctrines. He does indeed have that Western "super-logicalness" which the Eastern Fathers don't have (the same "super-logicalness" which the critics of Augustine today display so abundantly!). The one main lovable and Orthodox thing about him is his Orthodox feeling, piety, love for Christ, which comes out so strongly in his non-dogmatic works like the Confessions (the Russian Fathers also love the Soliloquies). To destroy Augustine, as today's critics are trying to do, is to help to destroy also this piety and love for Christ—these are too "simple" for today's intellectuals (even though they also claim to be "pious" in their own way). Today it is Augustine; tomorrow (and it's already begun) the attack will be on the "simple" bishops and priests of our Church. The anti-Augustine movement is a step towards schism and further disorders in the Orthodox Church.
Let us assume that one's exegesis of Romans 5:12 is incorrect; that one believes like Augustine on the transmission of original sin; that one knows little of the difference between the "transcendent" and the "economic" Trinity and sometimes confuses them. Can't one still be Orthodox? Does one have to shout so loudly one's "correctness" on such matters, and one's disdain (and this disdain is strongly felt!) for those who believe thus? In the history of the Church, opinions such as these which disagree with the consensus of the Church have not been a cause for heresy hunts. Recognizing our fallible human nature, the Fathers of the past have kept the best Orthodox views and left in silence such private views which have not tried to proclaim themselves the only Orthodox views.
I myself fear the cold hearts of the "intellectually correct" much more than any errors you might find in Augustine. I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to "correct theology"!); I feel in Augustine the love of Christ.
Forgive me for my frankness, but I think you probably welcome it. I have spoken from the heart, and I hope you will not pass this letter around so it can be put in various "files" and picked apart for its undoubted shortcomings.
May God preserve us all in His grace! Please pray for us.
With love in Christ,
Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim
P.S. An important point I didn't specify in the letter above the extreme criticism of Augustine shows such a lack of trust in the Orthodox Fathers and bishops of the past who accepted him as a Father (including the whole Orthodox West before the Schism). This lack of trust is a symptom of the coldness of heart of our times.
* From Father Seraphim Rose, The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996 [1983]), pp. 93-101.
Dear Edward:
I just want to clariy one thing. I respect Blessed Augustine and was taught to call him blessed. However, there is one thing that can settle this debate and that is: Is he listed in the role of Saint in the Orthodox Church?
I do not have a copy of the Synaxaris (Hope I spelled that correctly) to see if Augustine is listed as a Saint or Not. I hope some one out there can help us on this matter.
As for Fr. Azkoul and Fr. Seraphim Rose, these are two controversal figures in Orthodoxy I recognize that. Maybe you do not, but that's ok.
Let me explain. I grew up under the entire Fr. Neketas and Fr. Pantelemion matter and I know, from personal experience in my community how certain monks and priests that support monasteries are looked down upon bad mouthed, etc.
I don't like it. I know Fr. Pantelemion, my Priest at Sts. Constantine & Helen's Greek Orthodox Church knows him and went to school with him. I also know about the struggles that our two monasteries are going through here in the Midwest: One in Harvard, Illinois (Holy Transfiguration Monastery) & Racine, Wisconsin (St. John Chrysostom Monastery).
I know that St. John Cyrysostom monastery was founded by Fr. Emphraim (Not to be confused with Archmandrite Ephraim) and how he was basically forced back into the Greek Orthodox Archdiocies.
I know first hand how Bishops, priests, Metropolitans and Patriarchs behave. Look at how the Patriarch of Constantiople talked to Archbishop Demetrios recently about not supporting Greek Culture nor using Greek in the Archbishop's speece. I don't know he got upset over this as the Archbishop is there to defend the faith not promote Greek Culture (By the way I am Greek).
What I'm trying to get at is, putting Blessed Augustine to the side for the moment. I just like personal attacks on anyone whether its Fr. Azkoul or Fr. Rose.
Now I like the dignaty of Fr. Rose's letter and response to Fr. Azkoul, but to say that Fr. Azkoul, Fr. Neketas and Fr. Pantelemion are now GONE and out of the scene is just wrong.
This was to a response posted by Fr. A, which sounded to me like an agenda he was pushing. Now its fine if he wants to push an agenda or some type of hatful views, but I know the controversy and I know most of the players and I know the Old Calendarits in Boston and Colorado.
I know the Good the Bad and the Ugly so to speak and to say that These poeple are now GONE is just plain wrong.
Anyway, that was my point, but the Augustine issue I would like someone to reslve for us as I'm not an extremeist on this, I was just always taught to call him Blessed and Not a Saint, but I can, and have been, wrong.
Yours In Christ
Peter
PS I'm the same guy you just translated the Books of Moses from the Septuagint into English. Just in case anybody was wondering.
St. Augustine is found under June 15 in a number of Orthodox Calendars; eg St Nikolai Velimirovich's Prologue & the Jordanville Calendar.
The fact that St Augustine is often referred to as Blessed does not mean he is less of a saint. For example Xenia of Petersburg (June 24)is also called Blessed in the Calendars.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Well I do know that he is listed on June 15th, as this is 10 days after my birthday (that's how I remembered it)
However, is this a Russian Phenomenon or is this found in all Orthodox Calendars as well as Old and New?
The reason I ask this is because of the western and protestant influances that have been put upon the Russan and Ukranian Orthodox Churches. I mean no disrespect in asking this only to clarify the issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply with Quotation
Bookmarks