Jump to content

Talk:Augustine of Hippo/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Conversion to Catholicism

At several points in this document it talks about St. Augustine being or becoming a catholic. At the beginning it mentions him being canonized in the Lutheran, Episcopal, & Orthodox churches as well. This could lead to a lot of confusion from a reader who might wonder why other churches would venerate someone of another faith. Really, Augustine predated the great schism (Catholic-Orthodox) and the Reformation (Catholic-Protestant). Wouldn't it clear things up to simply say that he converted to Christianity?

Jaystannard (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


Antijudaism

Augustine’s Antijudaism in this English version seems to be glossed over - i.e., is not an issue. I suggest someone (who knows German AND is expertise on Augustine) look into the infos at the German version and add some or all of it to this site – should they in fact represent Augustine’s sentiments. According to the German version, not only did he see Jews as “dirty” and as “murderers” and describe to them other vile traits but was the first theologian to stigmatize the Jews for killing Jesus. A distant eco of what one later sees in Martin Luther.

Here the infos on the German verion: 

Antijudaismus  [Bearbeiten]

In seiner Kampfschrift Gegen die Juden griff Augustinus die Juden sowohl in ihrer Lebensführung wie auch theologisch an. Für Augustinus waren Juden bösartig, wild und grausam, er vergleicht sie mit Wölfen, schimpft sie „Sünder“, „Mörder“, „zu Essig ausgearteter Wein der Propheten“, „eine triefäugige Schar“, „aufgerührter Schmutz“. Sie seien des „ungeheueren Vergehens der Gottlosigkeit“ schuldig. Das Alte Testament sprach er ihnen ab: „Sie lesen es als Blinde und singen es als Taube“, verneinte nicht nur ihre „Auserwählung“, sondern sogar das Recht, sich noch „Juden“ zu nennen. Als erster Theologe legt er auch den Juden seiner Zeit Jesu Tod zur Last, was wieder ihre ewige Knechtschaft bedinge, ihre perpetua servitus. 1205 wird dieser Gedanke von Papst Innozenz III. aufgenommen und geht 1234 in die Dekretensammlung Gregors IX. ein.

Die Juden hatten in Augustinus’ Augen aber auch eine positive Funktion für das Christentum, weil sie, indem sie nicht an die biblischen Prophezeiungen über Jesus glaubten, gerade deren Echtheit bezeugten; „und eben wegen dieses Zeugnisses, das sie uns wider Willen leisten dadurch, dass sie die Texte besitzen und bewahren, sind sie selbst über alle Völker hin verstreut, soweit sich die Kirche erstreckt.“ [13] Weil sie als Zeugen für die Kirche nötig und von Gott vorgesehen seien, dürfe man sie nicht töten, sie trügen ein Kainsmal auf der Stirn. [14]

Pascal plante Augustinus’ Argumentation im Kapitel Beweise für Jesus Christus seiner Apologie der christlichen Religion heranzuziehen, er notiert in den Pensées: „(…) und es (das jüdische Volk) muß weiterbestehen, um ihn zu beweisen, und es muß im Elend sein, weil sie ihn gekreuzigt haben“. [15] 


Auseinandersetzung mit den Donatisten  [Bearbeiten]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.25.14 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Junk

The "In the arts" section seems to be dross and offal.Lestrade (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Dross AND offal. Well excuse me, Mr. SAT.

Also, it would probably be better to say that Augustine promoted the Christian faith rather than the "Catholic" faith as the article states. Most Westerners (therefore English speakers) would interpret this as referring to Roman Catholicism, which did not exist as a separate church at this time in history. Yes, I know that Catholic is technically correct from an Orthodox Christian standpoint, but the majority of readers will not know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.246.78 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 'Catholic' is used here in opposition to the various Christian heresies that existed (Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism). 'Christian' would in this case be too general. Maybe the term 'orthodox' could better be used in this sense. Iblardi (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. While the average person seems to take for granted that Western Christianity was a monolithic faith until the Protestant Reformation, in Augustine's time this was far from the case, with entire bishoprics, kingdoms and principalities under the sway of Arianism or other heretical churches. Also, wikipedia should not be dumbed down; using a less correct term on the rationale that to use the correct term would confuse "the average person" is an abomination. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Orthodox were not separate at this time, though I suppose that there is nothing wrong with the generic term "Orthodox Christians" to describe the entire church. Do the Eastern Orthodox object to their being described as "Christians?" I did not know that. While Arianism held sway for awhile it did not "officially" survive Nicea. I don't think other beliefs eventually described as "heresies" ever got quite the traction that Arianism did. So the church was fairly monolithic in belief (multiple patriarchs) until the 800 breakup. Even that was governmental/political, not really belief-oriented.
When I describe the American Democratic Pary, I describe them as favoring Obama. I do not allow for the minority who still support Clinton or some other candidate. It's becoming a little too PC to describe a group based on its minorities instead of what most of its adherents subscribe to. Some Americans support the American Nazi Party I suppose but I wouldn't waste a lot of space trying to contort the article on the United States to fit that particular group to "ensure they weren't overlooked." Student7 (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I changed Catholic to Christian but the change was promptly reverted. Mihai Capotă (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Name in Greek

Is there any particular reason to include this in the lead? The Latin makes sense, as it was his language, and is the language of the Western Church. But he is not one of the four Eastern doctors, my copy of Confessions says he was not fluent in Greek, he did not write in Greek, and he spent his time in Italy and North Africa. Any objections if I remove his name in Greek from the lead? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. He's a Latin daddy-o  ;-> Thanks. HG | Talk 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Done :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism: fake claims of 'Berber' ancestry

I've never looked at this page, but I do look at the Tertullian page. That had a strange entry that he was 'Berber', backed up by strange references. Now I know for a fact that there is no evidence of this for Tertullian at all. Now, on this page, I see precisely the same intrusion here, backed by a long list of general references, many of them the same. Yet as far as I know again there is no evidence of this for Augustine. I think we have a vandal at work, probably on all pages by ancient authors of North Africa (I've just walked around all those I could think of, and found exactly that). I've therefore deleted the bogus claim and its bogus references. No doubt at least some of these Romans did have Berber connections, but until we have proper referenced evidence of this, and in view of the actions of the vandal, I think that we must treat all such stuff with suspicion. Roger Pearse 09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it isn't totally bogus on this page. The Oxford World Classics edition of Confessions, has in a note on page xiii "Her name, spelt by Augustine Monnica, is probably Berber, and perhaps both parents were ethnically Berber." Obviously this is a tentative suggestion in a footnote, but it at least shows that Augustine as a Berber isn't total bs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Roger Pearse removed the following source (quotation from encyclopedia Americana) in many article (Augustine, Apuleius, ... ): "Berbers : ... The best known of them were the Roman author Apuleius, the Roman emperor Septimius Severus, and St. Augustine, whose mother was a Berber". However, even if you dont have access to Encyclopedia Americana, it is very easy to check that the source is perfectly valid. Just type between quotations marks "Augustine, whose mother was a Berber" in Google books and you will find it in page 569, v.3... So Roger Pears is the vandal.--Frenchman17 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Do not call someone who took the time to discuss this on the talk page a vandal. You created your account simply in reaction to this, and will probably contribute nothing more to WP. He had a reasonable question and addressed it on the talk page. You have done a good job addressing his questions, but you may not in good faith call him a vandal. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry for that... But I think we should always discuss before removing anything from articles especially when valid sources are specified.--Frenchman17 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it's all straightened out now, thank you for providing all the sources you did. WE all got through it using the talk page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that's very unfair. Pearse used the word "vandalism" first, and repeatedly. See Talk:North Africa during the Classical Period#Berber vandalism, noting particularly the date and time. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Pearse made an accusation of vandalism against an unknown user from the past, who seems not to have discussed the edits on the talk page, whereas an entirely new user, Frenchman, accused a well-established editor who had discussed the issue on the talk page of vandalism. They are entirely different scenarios. And Sam, you need to learn how use talk page discussions. You need to properly indent and place your posts for the ease of anyone who might read the talk page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you on all points. However, there is no benefit in continuing this sterile argument. I'd be interested in what Roger Pearse has to say now. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the comments! I did try to do the right thing here. It sounds as if we *do* have some stuff for Monica being Berber, with refs, so that's fine; let's have them in this article. As I said above, what I found on a load of pages was unreferenced claims of Berber connections. Some of them I knew to be nonsense. So I asked myself why would someone do this? I inferred, rightly or wrongly that this was junk by someone interested in pushing some pro-berber agenda (never heard of such an agenda, but why else would someone do such a thing?) So I pruned the lot as vandalism. If we do find some evidence for some connections -- and why shouldn't there be? -- then let's reinclude it. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Berber ancestry

Sorry but it is NOT bogus at all...

A lot of french historians internationally renowned like Henri Irénée Marrou, Étienne Gilson, Fernand Braudel, Louis Chevalier and many others specialist of Roman Africa like Claude Lepelley, Serge Lancel, André Berthier etc say he was berber. The same for many famous french theologians like Guy Bedouelle...

Some quotations (sorry they are in french - I can translate them if necessary):

  • Henri Irénée Marrou : "Théologien, j'ai appris de mon maître saint Augustin, ce Berbère, que toutes les nations qui se manifestent dans l'histoire sont nécessairement un mélange, pour nous inextricable, de Cité du Bien et de Cité du Mal." (Henri Irénée Marrou, Crise de notre temps et réflexion chrétienne de 1930 à 1975, éd. Beauchesne, 1978, p. 177)
  • Étienne Gilson : "Presque tous les Pères latins sont des Africains. Tertullien de Carthage, le Numide Arnobe de Sicca et son élève Lactance, saint Cyprien de Carthage, Victorinus l'Africain, le Berbère saint Augustin, bref toute cette glorieuse tête de colonne de la patristique latine [...], que de dons splendides de l'Afrique à l'Eglise de Rome pendant que celle-ci n'avait encore à mettre en balance que saint Ambroise et saint Jérôme !" (Étienne Gilson, Le philosophe et la théologie (1960), éd. Vrin, 2005, p. 175-176)

This book was translated in english :

  • Etienne Gilson : "Nearly all the Latin Fathers are Africans - Tertullian of Carthage, the Numid Arnobius of Sicca and his pupil Lactantius, Saint Cyprian of Carthage, the African Marius Victorinus, the Berber Saint Augustine, in short, all this glorious vanguard of Latin patristic culture. What splendid gifts these were from Africa to the Church of Rome while the latter had only the works of Saint Ambrose and of Saint Jerome to put in the Balance ! " (Etienne Gilson, The Philosopher and Theology (1960)], Random House New York, 1962, pp.195-196 )
  • Louis Chevalier : "Les fondateurs de la première littérature chrétienne ont été Tertullien et ce pur berbère Saint-Augustin" ( Louis Chevalier, Le problème démographique nord-africain (1947),Presses universitaires de France, 1947, p. 194)
  • Charles Nicolle : "Il a fallu des siècles pour que l'Afrique romaine offre à l'humanité un Apulée, un saint Augustin et un Septime Sévère; les deux premiers de sang berbère", (Charles Nicolle, Biologie de l'invention (1932), Alcan, 1932, p. 25)
  • Fernand Braudel, probably the most renowned french historian, :"Berbère, né en 354 à Tagaste, en Africa, il mourra évêque d'Hippone en 430..." (Fernand Braudel, Grammaire des civilisations (1963), Flammarion, 2008, p. 453)

Translated in english in 1993 :

etc

About non French authors (English, German...) I am not a specialist (but Roman Africa has not been studied a lot by english authors) but I can say that many famous authors like Norman Cantor, Irving Hexham, Friedrich Heer etc and even Encyclopedia Americana say he was berber

  • Norman Cantor : "Augustine was an outsider - a native North African whose family was not Roman but Berber" (Norman Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Harper, 1993, p. 74)
  • Martin Evans, Professor in Contemporary European History, at University of Portsmouth, specialist of Algeria : "Son of a Berber mother, the deeply commited Monica", (Martin Evans & John Phillips, Algeria, Yale University Press, 2007 ,p.15)
  • Encyclopedia Americana : "Berbers : ... The best known of them were the Roman author Apuleius, the Roman emperor Septimius Severus, and St. Augustine whose mother was a Berber" (Encyclopedia Americana, Scholastic Library Publishing, 2005, v.3, p.569 )

I could fill the page with dozens of quotations but I dont think it is necessary ...--Frenchman17 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty persuasive. See also: "A Note on the Berber background in the life of Augustine" by Maurice Frost, Journal of Theological Studies 1942 XLIII(171-172):188-194 by Oxford University Press. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, this sounds good to me too. Include it. But one thought; how on earth could anyone now *know* whether Augustine was Berber. They can't DNA him! So how can they know? Note that one of the refs is rather more cautious. So... is something a bit whiffy here? Perhaps best to say that some scholars have said that he was Berber, and footnote who? Roger Pearse (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There was no DNA test neither to "know" that Julius Caesar was Roman, Alexander the Great was Greek ans so on ... So it is the same for all famous people. Am I 100 % sure that my father who died 10 years ago was my real father. Of course not. Concerning Augustine there are many clues about his native origin like her mothers name Monnica, his fathername Aurelius which strongly suggests that his family were among the many who were enfranchised by the famous edict of Caracalla of 212, whereby almost all the freemen of the Empire became Roman citizens, his birthplace Thagaste where the population was no doubt mostly of Berber stock and so on. --90.28.232.72 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a bone to pick in this argument, but since I am currently researching Augustine I thought I should just chime in. First off, I think there is a bit of an anachronistic argument going on here -- modern terms and uses of ethnic identities that have sprung up since the worldwide spread of nationalism and its attendant theories. I find it odd that with the mountain of writing (including autobiographical) left to us by Augustine, he never once identified himself as "Berber," and yet we seem to categorize him as such. Berber as opposed to what? The distinctions in use in his time for Africa, the province, were Roman (African) and non-Roman. He readily identified himself as Roman. Secondly, though I find the wall of quotes above justified and admirable (nice work!), I think it's necessary to approach them with a large amount of caution. The history of French politicization of the Arab vs Berber distinction for reasons of empire and racial prejudice is a fact. I have not gone to each line to study its provenance, nor do I mean to discount any source b/c it's French, but I do think skepticism is at least necessary due to this and the previous point I made. I personally would feel much more comfortable categorizing him as an African (geographically), a Roman (politically), a Christian, and of likely Berber ethnicity through his mother. It's a small difference from what's there now, but I think an important one. Windthorst (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying that internationnaly renowned historians like Braudel, Gilson or Marrou belong to the category of historians you mentionned is not only wrong but injurious. Moreover many historians whether they are french, english, spanish or american etc say the same. Of course you will always find a few afrocentrist or eurocentrist "historians" who will claim that Augustine was "black" or "european" for ideological reasons but what is important in wikipedia is what the vast majority of internationnaly renowned historians say and not what a few wikipedians or marginal "historians" think. About Augustine's ancestry, he was for sure an indigenous north-african. How could it be otherwise as he was from a city that was never colonized by romans ? Concerning anachronism, what you said is also dubious. Saying that Augustine was "algerian" could be anachronistic, of course, as Algeria did not exist at that time, but even in this case, one could argue that it is the same for all the famous people who were born before the modern nations were created, for many of them, very recently only in the 19th century ...--90.36.151.245 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another voice chiming in. The above note about French scholarship being politicized is dead on. But much of the older scholarship (especially W.H.C Frend) uses some dubious categories for analysis regarding nationality. Augustine NEVER thought of himself as anything but ROMAN. Read him, not the French scholars. There were other languages spoken in Roman North Africa, but Augustine didn't speak them. Probably the dominant minority language Augustine was familiar with would be a Semitic derivation he called Punic. See Green, William M. “Augustine’s Use of Punic.” In Semitic and Oriental Studies: a Volume Presented to William Popper Professor of Semitic Languages, Emeritus on the Occasion of his Seventy-fifth Birthday, 179-190. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951. Augustine shows REAL Semitic constructions when talking about this other language, not Berber ones. But regardless, it wasn't his language. He spoke Latin, he studied Latin rhetoric, he wrote Latin prose. He was a thoroughly Romanized citizen. One more point. Names mean nothing. So Monica isn't a Latin name? Who cares. Agrippa was an odd name for the Roman generals and Jewish kings that carried it. And my wife's name is Sarah, and she's not Jewish. I study Augustine for a living. Trust me, it's better to read him, than to read about him. Cgarbarino (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One more thing about the Berber question. What other evidence is there for giving Augustine Berber ancestry BESIDES Monica's name? Not scholarship repeated ad nauseam, but evidence. The mother's name thing is highly speculative. We need something more if you want the Berber references. SOURCE MATERIAL, not scholarship. Primary texts, etc.Cgarbarino (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, he was a Roman citizen (By edict of Caracalla in 212, all free men in the Empire become Roman citizens like Augustine father's ancestor) but he was of berber ancestry. There are many other evidence besides his mother's name but one of the most important is of course that he was born not in a colony (army veterans, and some others, settled in new or existing towns) but in a Municipium (inhabited by native romanized people)... About "Source materials" and "Primary texts", I think you dont know the rules of wikipedia very well as "Primary texts" are not considered as the best sources and should generally be avoided. Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources : "secondary source material is most preferred" and also "accuracy articles should never include the opinions of Wikipedians themselves..."
So if hundred of secondary sources say he was a Berber, no reason to include your opinion in the article...(90.28.102.207 (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)).
Thank you for pointing to a wikipedia proposal that failed to gain a consensus. Also, regarding Augustine's supposed Berberness, the scholarly consensus is that the idea is fanciful. Yes, you can cite many people who say it, but it IS NOT the consensus of Augustine scholars. It's an ahistorical assesment of nationality that would have meant nothing to Augustine himself. You don't seem to know Roman history as well as you think you do. "colonia" and "municipium" have to do with administrative political prerogatives by the 4th cen, and little to do with ethnicity. The Romans had controlled the North African coast for over six hundred years. SIX HUNDRED YEARS! The people living their were ROMANS! If you would have asked them, they'd have said they were ROMAN! Do we classify Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, as Aztec? No, it would be absurd. Would we call Montezuma a "Latin American"? No, absurd. In the same way, you can't call Augustine Berber. It doesn't work because it's absurd. I'm sorry a lot of people who are not specialists in Roman history have made this mistake, but the VAST majority of scholars merely refer to him as ROMAN.Cgarbarino (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course he was a Roman, culturally, as all the romanized berbers leaving in North Africa during that period of history. And yes "the VAST majority of scholars refer to him as ROMAN"... but they say also he was of berber descent. Most North Africans today say they are "arabs" even if we know they are of berber ancestry ... By the way, one of the best french specialist of Augustine, Henri-Irénée Marrou, who wrote "probabilities allow us to think that he was of pure Berber race" also wrote "what counts is civilization, not chromosomes"... We agree on this. But as a romanized african, he was also of berber ancestry, and there has never been any doubt among historians specialists in Roman history regarding this fact... The article doesn't say "he was a berber" but only says "he was of berber ancestry", which is completely different and perfectly true as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.122.160 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's still speculative, and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. AND any discussion of "chromosomes" is so last century. Classical men did not recognize biological race as a category, and neither do current historians. Hang ups about biological race are grounded in 20th century pseudo-science. Stay with current scholarship or use categories Augustine would understand. "Berber" isn't one of them. How do you know his forebears weren't Carthaginians? You don't? How do you know that his forebears weren't Italian businessmen? You don't. It is academic gamesmanship to suggest you do. Pure and simple. Stick with what you do know. He was a Roman from the province of Africa. And sign your posts.Cgarbarino (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I edited the article to a compromise. I left the Marrou citation in the notes and added an explanatory clause to the note. I removed the other citations because they were of poor quality. Tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias are not ideal. Also, Cantor was not knowledgeable on this earlier period, so here he is also tertiary. I removed Gilson because he is primarily concerned with intellectual history and not a good source for context or social history. I hope this is a suitable compromise.Cgarbarino (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is highly speculative and does not belong in an encyclopedia article as it is only your point of view. Have you ever really read any book about Roman africa ? Sorry but again, this is not what you think or what I think which is important but what hundred of historians say ... and you must follow the rules of wikipedia 90.28.100.213 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a university trained late antique scholar who is a PhD candidate. I'm writing my dissertation on Augustine as we speak. I am currently an assistant professor in a history department. I have read all the books on Roman Africa. Give it a rest. It's anachronistic, misleading, and doesn't belong in this article.Cgarbarino (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if you but are a PhD candidate, what you are saying is mainly your point of view which is not supported by the vast majority of specialists. And removing sources from internationally renowned historians like Fernand Braudel, Etienne Gilson, Norman Cantor, Everett Ferguson ... or renown encyclopedia like Grand Larousse encyclopédique or Encyclopedia Americana is against the rules of wikipedia. Regarding the term "Berber", it has two meanings, it first refers to modern people from North Africa that speak a berber language but it also means "Indigenous north africans" whether they were romanized, arabized... The best compromise would be to write, for example, "Augustine, a Roman north African, was born in 354..". or simply "Augustine, a Roman African, was born in 354..". "Roman African" is the term used by many historians like, for exemple, Paul MacKendrick in The North African Stones Speak‎,: The willing acceptance of Roman citizenship by members of the ruling class in African cities produced such Roman Africans as the comic poet Terence, the rhetorician Fronto of Cirta, the jurist Salvius Julianus of Hadrumetum, the novelis Apuleius of Madauros, the emperor Septimius Severus of Lepcis Magna, the Christians Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage, and Arnobius of Sicca and his pupil Lactantius; the angelic doctor Augustine of Thagaste... So I have added "Augustine, a Roman African, was born in 354..", Paul MacKendrick source and wrote in the note that "many sources used the term Berber but it is sometimes considered as anachronistic..." . I hope this is a suitable compromise. 90.28.237.99 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I find that wording acceptable because I believe Augustine would approve.Cgarbarino (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling Mary the "Mother of God"

The historian, Philip Schaff says:

"He also contributed to promote, at least in his later writings, the Catholic faith of miracles, and the worship of Mary; though he exempts the Virgin only from actual sin, not from original, and, with all his reverence for her, never calls her mother of God."- History of the Christian Church, vol 3, chap 10, section 180, 6th paragraph.

Schaff is generally regarded as a very scholarly and unbiased historian, however, he was writing over a century ago. Is there any documentary evidence that Augustine ever used the phrase "mother of God" of Mary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blkgardner (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC) --Blkgardner (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre religion?

"During this time, Augustine was a devout follower of Manichaeism, a religion based on many tradtions and strange fantasies. It is curious that an intelligent man such as Augustine would follow a religion as bizarre as Manichaeism" -- um any religion is bound to be "bizarre" to someone? Mvuijlst (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is totally inappropriate tone for this article. I checked out the source on that paragraph, and it is a personal website. It is referenced, but it among its sources is WP. So, that seems to me to fail the RS req's, so I removed any dubious material attached to that source, as well as the refs. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clear up one thing that is constantly wrong

Augustine did not start of Catholic. He was a Pagan like his father Patricius and later went to Manichaeism in his schooling. Then when he went to Rome and Milan in Italy he was temped to convert to Christianity, but he didn't. He then went to Neoplatonism and finaly, before he left Italy to go back to his homeland, he met Ambrose. Then he converted to Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.2.35 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Augustine was born in to the Christian church like his mother and raised Christian (Confessions, Book I, x, 17). He had a typical, pagan Roman education, converted to Manichaeism (to the horror of his mother), and then converted back to Christianity. Windthorst (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Conversion, from a bad life to a good life

Saint Augustine lived a pagen life with a pagen life-style, even though his family were Christian, and would have been Baptised as such. His mother Saint Monica was constantly praying for his conversion, conversion from following a sinful life-style to following a good life. When his mother would chide Saint Augustine, he would say, mockingly, "Make me good, Lord, but not just yet!", He said this with his hands joined, looking up to heaven! His conversion is outlined in the article page. Confessions of St. Augustine (a seperate article page), is where Saint Augustine speaks of his conversion and change of heart and declared it publicy, that is what "confessions" means here.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Papal Supremacy

Augustine (despite the reference #45) did NOT hold that the Pope had a "Supreme Jurisdiction" over the church, as in the modern meaning of "Papal Supremacy". "Optaremus", a reply by the African Bishops to a "ruling" by the Pope, is quite pointed, even insulting, in telling the Pope to stay out of the affairs of other provinces. This makes it clear that the Pope's "supremacy" is not one of jurisdiction, but rather a primacy of honour. This is even more pointed when viewed against his ecclesiology as argued against the Donatists.

The reference given is also inaccurate; the correct reference is Letter #43, chapter 3, para. 7. This letter is aimed at schismatic Donatists, and the quoted reference speaks of Rome "in which the supremacy OF AN apostolic chair had always flourished" (NOT "supremacy over all other apostolic chairs...). The meaning is clear in context; that Rome had never lapsed into schism or heresy, but had maintained the apostolic faith supreme, over error. This is but one of many reasons why Rome merits primacy of honour, and rightly deserves to be listened to and appealed to as a respected and persuasive authority; but never does Augustine extend this to a jurisdictional authority. However honoured and persuasive the opinion of the Pope might be, outside his own See it is never more than an opinion. Any other interpretation, against the whole context of Augustine's Eccesiology, is a later Roman interpretation and in conflict with the writings of the Great Doctor himself.

The Christian Church today would do well to live out his vision of the Church as "a Body that builds itself up in Love". This would mean to encourage inter-communion (the refusal of inter-communion is the Great Sin against the Holy Spirit, according to Augustine's anti-Donatist writings), and to recognise the authority of each congregation to be either an independent jurisdiction, or (preferably) to unite into provinces or dioceses for mutual correction and support. But at all times, this must be a voluntary jurisdiction, in Love.


58.178.76.5 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) gnomine

Race

This site states that Augustine was a black african, rather than semitic north african: http://www.africanamericans.com/BlackSaints.htm . Wikipedia doesn't seem to state race either way, but the image is clearly not of an black african. Why is this.. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not unlike this one, which is the oldest known portrait. If this is really what the site implies, it must be a fringe view. Insofar as scholarship has dealt with the issue of Augustine's ancestry, the main theory seems to be that, through his mother, he was probably (partially) 'Berber' or something closely related; this is at least what is stated by the sources mentioned in the article. There is no hint at sub-Saharan roots any more than is the case with other Roman Africans. Iblardi (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That we could get a "What race was he?" discussion here was already apparent when the Category: African born philosophers was merged into the Category: African philosophers. I don't know if there is such a thing as 'African philosophy'. Considering that the Philosophy article already includes a subsection Persian philosophy, that would be imaginable, but the only distinction of traditions of philosophy that would find general acceptance afaik is the one between Western and Eastern philosophy. Alternative descriptions would be European and Asian philosophy, and then you would have to say that Augustine is an European philosopher. Not only that, but he decisively influences Western philosophy. So I guess we would need to revise the decision to merge the categories.
However, geographical attributes aren't appropriate to describe the various traditions of philosophy. I am not familiar enough with Eastern Philosophy, but Western Philosophy at least has universal pretension. Theories of a good life, theories of justice, theories of cognition and that all are though to be applicable to any person in the world, regardless of whether he/she comes from Europa, Africa or Asia. In one introduction I read this distinction of philosophy in various 'philosophies' is negatively compared to chemistry. You don't have different concepts of H2O for Europe and Asia neither.
And anyway, as far as I know, Augustine's mother was in fact of Berber origin. Augustine's skin colour would have been rather dark, so, if he by some divine intervention miraculously would appear in the streets of the Bronx, he would quite likely be considered 'black'. But this is simply the result of those stupid categories of race. There are verbatim a 'black and white scheme', and don't leave any room at all for the wide range of skin colours that can be observed phenomenologically. Still, the Afrocentrists, who took up that category of a 'Black Race' positively, should be talking about a black Augustine instead of black Socrates (anyone read Black Athena revisited here?); that would imho be sustainable. Zara1709 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some pictures of famous French people of berber origin. French politician Arnaud Montebourg whose mother is Berber [1]. Zinedine Zidane 100% Berber, the most famous football player [2]. Another famous football player is Karim Benzema 100% Berber [3]. So they even do not look "Mediterranean" but almost "Nordic" .--90.28.232.72 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

City of God not the church

I'm pretty sure the City of God is not the church and that in his book he declares that it is impossible to know who belongs to the city of god 'on pilgrimage'. I think the city of god is those who do not have pride. This relates to one of the first sentences in this wiki article. Can someone with more knowledge of this clarify. 129.67.160.30 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question is backed up by a RS, but I will clarify it more on the basis of a work to which I have access. It may be that what you said is true, but we need a reliable source to say it before we can include it in the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reclaim original content

On July 6, 2007, someone removed content they thought was copied from biographylist.com. However, that site is fraudulent and copies text from around the web and claims it as its own. This isn't the only article in which it has taken Wikipedia material and claimed it as its own. This material should be reclaimed and everyone should be aware that that website is not legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.42.233 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by AwesomeMachine

I'm sure these edits were well intended, but they're almost entirely inappropriate. Incorporating the words "Roman Catholic(ism)" at every conceivable opportunity – 14 times in total, including 6 times in a single paragraph – is gratuitous, as is "Augustine was Catholic, and had never heard of Protestantism". "He successfully rebutted all heresies against Mother Church" is a blatant violation of the neutral point of view policy. All these changes seem intended to represent Augustine as in line with modern Catholicism and to disparage other Christians who regard him as authoritative.

Some of the factual changes are dubious – saying he was "one of the most important figures in the formation of Western Civilization" makes it sound as though Western civilization didn't exist prior to him. Most of the other additions are redundant. The previous version already said he was "Bishop of Hippo Regius", so we don't need to restate that he was a priest and bishop. It already said he was a saint, so we don't need to say that he's known as "Saint Augustine" (this change also altered a statement attributed to a specific source – was the source consulted?). The new sentence about The City of God is virtually a paraphrase of the one it was placed in front of. EALacey (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:Is there anything we need to incorporate from his edit, or should we just revert it? It was so large, and looked like he added sources, that in glancing over it the only thing I noticed that made me uncomfortable was changing from St Austin to Saint Augustine. That definitely needs to be changed back. The NPOV things obviously need to be removed. So, yeah, would it just be better to revert wholesale? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, guess I should have looked at the article before posting that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion January 20th

Deleted the following:

"In the week following her comments, she was corrected by numerous American bishops, such as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, who wrote: "In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself..."[1]"

I see no reason for this in an article about St. Augustine except to fuel a debate where it is not appropriate. It is fine to mention how Pelosi quoted Augustine in favor of her point of view, but continuing to show the reaction of unrelated church figures is unnecessary. 72.86.90.49 (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some, if not all, of the content removed from this section ought to be restored. It was originally added entirely because of the whole Pelosi thing. The fact that it came to light to the general public because of her comments is relevant for this reason. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"Was corrected" is POV; few bishops are Augustine scholars, and the claim that none of the Church Fathers "diminished the unique evil of abortion" is weasel-wording: who in the fifth century asserted the unique evil of abortion? So this is an assertion that Augustine did not contradict what nobody said; by that reasoning the bishops could have had him defending the rights of dolphins, because he did not diminish them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Free will

The article says the following: "The Roman Catholic Church considers Augustine's teaching to be consistent with free will.[44]"

This is not a judgment exclusive to the RCC, besides the fact that the article quotes the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a judgment corroborated by much mainstream scholarship. See, for instance, the essay on Augustine and free will by Eleonore Stump in the Cambridge Companion to Augustine:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tFyhGvLRyI0C&pg=PA124&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"The following section is disputed ..."

Can anyone resolve this dispute or at least move it to this page? Beyond my scope, or else I'd be bold. Thanks. Mrgate3 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that tag. What section is it at? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the correct way to format or edit a page like this, and I don't want to get it wrong, but there seems to be a mistranslation under the teaching philosophy section. The mathematics quote is actually about astrology, the roles being very similar in that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykuhl (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thagaste

His birthplace, Thagaste, is suspiciously close in pronunciation to a region of Souk Ahras called "Daghousa" (دغوسة). The article names the birthplace as just Souk Ahras. --Djihed (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

The words "first," "second," and "third" are an interesting exception in that they work as adverbs without "-ly" attached. I corrected for this in one part of the article. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.144.209 (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life Movement

I think his views on abortion really should be in the article about the Pro-life movement. It seems out of place in here. In fact, St. Augustine certainly would be amazed that his stance on abortion ever could be used to justify abortion, since he totally opposed it. If nobody opposes I will make the move.213.13.245.47 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

He did not support abortion but he did not support the idea that it was murder, at least up to a certain point. To say otherwise is biased POV. And of course it is relevant to this article; it was his view, you cannot bury it simply because you do not like it.-1/19/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.86.73 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

All readings of St. Augustine show that he, like all Church Fathers, totally condemned abortion as a crime. I don't know if he ever used such a strong word as "murder" to refer to it. The ensoulment question is a different matter that some try to use to distort is strong anti-abortion views. Both questions are in the entry but I think that some direct quotes from St. Augustine would help too.82.154.86.73 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine on Abortion

St. Augustine was deeply anti-abortion and he even believed the aborted fetus souls could ressurrect at the end of times. He didn't rationally would called it "murder" before ensoulment but still as a very serious crime that deprived the embryo or fetus of having a soul. I hope this article would clarify better his views on abortion and ensoulment:

"Abortion: Augustine, in common with most other ecclesiastical writers of his period, vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion. Procreation was one of the goods of marriage; abortion figured as a means, along with drugs which cause sterility, of frustrating this good. It lay along a continuum which included infanticide as an instance of "lustful cruelty" or "cruel lust" (nupt. et conc. 1.15.17). Augustine called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child an "evil work": a reference to either abortion or contraception or both (b. conjug. 5.5). Augustine accepted the distinction between "formed" and "unformed" fetuses found in the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-23. While the Hebrew text provided for compensation in the case of a man striking a woman so as to cause a miscarriage, and for the penalty to be exacted if further harm were done, the Septuagint translated the word "harm" as "form," introducing a distinction between a "formed" and an "unformed" fetus. The mistranslation was rooted in an Aristotelian distinction between the fetus before and after its supposed "vivification" (at forty days for males, ninety days for females). According to the Septuagint, the miscarriage of an unvivified fetus were vivified, the punishment wa a capital one. Augustine disapproved of the abortion of both the vivified and unvivified fetus, but distinguished between the two. The unvivified fetus died before it lived, while the vivified fetus died before it was born (nupt. et con. 1.15.17). In referring back to Exodus 21:22-23, he observed that the abortion of an unformed fetus was not considered murder, since it could not be said whether the soul was yet present (qu. 2.80). The question of the resurrection of the fetus also exercised Augustine, and sheds some light on his views on abortion. Here again he referred to the distinction between the formed and unformed fetus. Though he acknowledged that it was possible that the unformed fetus might perish like a seed, it was also possible that, in the resurrection, God would supply all that was lacking in the unformed fetus, just as he would renew all that was defective in an adult. This notion, Augustine remarked, few would dare to deny, though few would venture to affirm it (ench. 33.85). At another point Augustine would neither affirm nor deny whether the aborted fetus would rise again, though if it should be excluded from the number of the dead, he did not see how it could be excluded from the resurrection (civ. Dei 22.13).

from John C. Bauerschmidt, "Abortion", in "Augustine Through The Ages: An Encyclopedia", edited by Fr. Alan Fitzgerald, OSA, p. 1.82.154.86.73 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Milania

I would like to find out what the (Milania) under the "Studying at Carthage" section means?

"..who would be his concubine for over thirteen years and who gave birth to his son, Adeodatus[15][16] (Milania)."

I'm trying to find out it's meaning from other references but I found nothing. Is it a typographical error? Should it be Milana or Melania? Queux (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Biblical Reference

Thank you for a very good and balanced page for Saint Augustine.

The Letter of Saint Paul: Saint Paul to The Romans is referred to at point {18}, but point 18 gives the overall reference to the Confessions of Saint Augustine, and the reference to Romans is missing! May I put it in: (Romans 13: 13-14). This is important as it refers to the point of his conversion.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Request for Comment

I have deleated my previous entry under this heading asking for: "orthordox christanity" to replace the reference to Saint Augustine's conversion. It was incorrect, as is what is on the article page at the moment: "Catholic Christianity".

What was Saint Augustine's conversion was is from a desulite living life to a saintly life, or a sinful life to a good life.

I request this entry under the heading "conversion" in the article page be changed to reflect this.

Therefore, I am asking for a review and a change. Your comments, please.

Further up this talk page I mentioned his conversion was of this nature and entered an anecdote from his life to reflect this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that his personal life entered into it, it is also important to note that he did in fact convert to what was at the time "standard" Christianity, specifically from Manichaeism, which itself can be seen as a kind of Christianity, as it is his status as a Christian apologist which is his greated claim to fame and significance. The question then becomes what form of Christianity he converted to. Considering the article states that he was a believer in papal supremacy (footnote 56), which is basically a specifically Catholic doctrine, it makes sense to say that he was a convert to Catholicism. And, by the way, the best way to request comment is by adding the template, as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do accept what you say. But, his conversion moment is key to understanding all of Saint Augustine. His conversion was from bad to good as he was a member of a Christian family already. His Confessions, which I quoted on your talk page indicates the same. I'v taken on board you comment re the correct way to request comment. Sorry, I'm a beginner.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point in saying that Augustine himself viewed his conversion in the way you described, and I wouldn't myself have any objections to seeing that included as well, although in the interests of neutrality we probably couldn't have the article use the words "bad" and "good" or anything similar unless adding in whose opinion they were "bad" or "good". I was only addressing that it was to Catholic Christianity. And don't worry too much about the RFC matter, although it might help get a few faster responses if for whatever reason someone else can't add the template. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I put in here "bad" & "good" for brevity's sake, Maybe quoting what Saint Augustine said himself about it here at the "conversion" article entry would be better. Thanks for responding, so promptly, and taking me point seriously.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, what I suggest:

Putting at the end of: "Christian Conversion" paragraph:

Saint Augustine sees his conversion as personal, (quoting here what I referred to prior) away from "ugliness" to a devout life in Christ.

I do not see myself as taking anything away or editing anything. Is that appropriate?

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To add words like "personal" and "ugliness", you'd need a specific citation. And I would at least somewhat question the utility of calling anyone's conversion "personal", as that is I think kind of understood. If by that you mean an intense or intensely personal experience or somehing similar, and there is some sourcing somewhere which describes it as such, that would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have looked up a number of sources, and the best I'v seen comes from the words of Saint Austin himself in his confessions. The other is from The Butler lives of the Saints, book II, of Fr. Alban Butler. Also some of his sermons indicate the same (Ep.2.) What I suggest is to quote this as it stands it is good and clear and some of the words of Butler's lives of the Saints. These could stand on their own without any reference from me!

The word "ugliness" comes from the words of the confessions themselves; (Book 27-29) "Late have I loved you, O beauty so ancient and so new; late have I loved you! For behold you were within me, and I outside; and I saught you outside and in my ugliness fell upon those lovely things that you have made......"(Some sources, particularly early ones, deleted the last phrase, perhaps for fear of detrimental to Saint Austin).

Incidentily, he was a catacumen and post-poned his baptism, which was performed by, Saint Ambrose on Easter-eve, in 387, Saint Alipius his chief confident, was present, and baptised at the same time. We know the precise time of his conversion.

Agree? for me to put in on the article page at paragraph: Christian Conversion, the quotes mentioned.(at the end).

His conversion was intense and went in stages.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentily, regarding what he converted to, there was a long despute between the Canons Regular and the Hermits of Saint Augustine, each of these two families claiming him exclusively as its own. Pope Sixtus IV put an end to the despute with "Summum silentium" (1484). This is an important point to those who say he was not Catholic but Christian.

He never went near cities or vacent sees for fear of being constrained to be bishop! The dangers in that charge was imminse. In fact this did happen!

I do have sources for all this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the relevance of the above post. Who are the Hermits of Saint Augustine to which you refer, and how did this alleged argument relate to them? And, while he may have been afraid to be entering any other bishoporics, the fact that he believed there to be some chance of being ordained its bishop by the people who at the time probably adhered to what is today the Catholic hierarchy seems to indicate that he was seen as being "Catholic" enough for the time. Also, whether something is an "important point" to some individuals or not does not mean that it is necessarily important enough to be included in the main article on the subject.
You seem to be indicating that you believe that there is some sort of argument about Augustine's status (by the way, I've never heard of this Augustine being called "Austin" before, only Augustine of Canterbury) that is relevant to be included. If that is the case, then I think it would be a good idea to give a summary of that argument, citing the sources for and against. Personally, in all honesty, I am a Roman Catholic, so I have to acknowledge that it might be possible all my previous study of the subject might have been biased, but I don't remember having ever heard anyone argue that Augustine was not what would be called a Catholic. If you have sources which demonstrate notability of the subject within the mainstream of the study of Augustine, by all means bring them forward, but like I said it is not an idea I had previously encountered. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Carter,

Thank you for coming back to me.

I don't dispute the Catholicity of Saint Augustine. The study I have followed, recently, I'm reflecting to you.

In the discussions further up this page you will see many question the Catholicity of Saint Augustine and point out that other Christian faiths claim him.

The Canons Regular are an order of priests (Catholic), the Hermits of Saint Augustine are a monastic faternity (Catholic). This historical point indicates further the Catholicity of Saint Augustine.

On your talk page I'v outlined the observable stages of his conversion. I feel the article page of Saint Augustine would benefit with a further entry on the conversion of Saint Augustine. If you wish, with the four headings named on your talk page?

However, if you don't agree, I will not persue this further.

I too am a devout Catholic. I have re-read the history of Saint Augustine and am just reflecting this from a purely information point of view. And as a devout Catholic I see in the spiritual journey of Saint Augustine a path that I, too, am on. A path that is relevent to all Christians and for those who are not.

I think the conversion history of Saint Augustine would be a key for us all to discover the path from a secular worldly life to a contemplative one. Saint Augustine referred to two secular sources: the maxim of Seneca and that of Horatio, in his persuit of "the path".

The history I'v been reading find his name abbreviated to Saint Austin.

Sincerely, MacOfJesus (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Being canonized by other groups isn't really the same thing as being a member of them. And many of the early church fathers, and I think all the apostles, have been canonized by other groups. That's not necessarily a claim that they as individuals were adherents of the thinking of those groups, particularly when they didn't yet exist. Also remember Justin Martyr is considered a Catholic saint, even though his thinking about things like Adam climbing the tree to heaven is about as far from Catholic teaching as it's possible to get. I think the canonizations are more a statement of his sanctity than a claim that Augustine was "one of us" to those other groups. And, particularly for articles that get as many hits as this one, a lot of fringe theories come up. You might check the history regarding Imhotep being claimed to be the patriarch Joseph on the Talk:Imhotep page, for instance. If we don't have a reliable source which have achieved some degree of academic acceptance explicitly making such a claim, we really don't have reason to include them in the main article, although that doesn't rule out their inclusion in other articles if the ideas are notable enough. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources I'v studied are Catholic Encyclopedia 1930, and The Butler lives of the Saints. The study I'v followed is the Conversion stages of Saint Augustine. These are proven reliable sources. Together with Vatican sources, where I'v discovered the quotes are missing in so many older sources: "...and in my ugliness fell upon those lovely things that you have made...."

Regarding Canonisation: The same came up regarding Saint Theresa of the little flower. Because the priest gave her two hosts had a desertation on the privelege of receiving Jesus twice, which of course is completely wrong. It did not stop her becoming a Saint and Doctor of the Church!

I see from your responses that "the hands off" message is clear.

My main point is that the Conversion of Saint Augustine is not covered adequately, all my sources say the same. In fact there should be a seperate page covering, "the conversion of Saint Augustine of Hippo".

The sheer volume of the work on the subject, is such, that it tells us that your coverage is not adequite.MacOfJesus (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can hilight the quotes from my sources, but perhaps that is not necessary now.

Good Bye.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the dispute, John emphasizes the switch from Manichaean christianity to non-Manichaean christianity, which he calls "Catholic." First of all, would it be a reasonable compromise to change that to "catholic"? Many use the uncapitalized form to mean a generic sort of universalized pre-reformation or non-protestant christianity, using Catholic only when it is necessary to distinguish between the Church of Rome and other modern christian bodies such as the Anglicans who consider themselves to be part of a "church universal," the original meaning of "catholic," as in the creeds.
I somewhat disagree with Bernard that Augustine's conversion was in the nature of a massive ethical improvement. In fact, his behavior after the conversion wasn't entirely admirable nor had he been a truly awful person before. In the confessions he makes normal (in his day and ours) youthful behavior sound perverse, simply because it was prior to his conversion. To give one example, he lived for 15 years in an apparently monogamous relationship which was never officially sanctified because they were not of the same social class. It was apparently quite common to do this. Augustine summarily sent the woman away, kept their son, and even after his conversion made no attempt to get in touch with her (even for the sake of the son) or help her in any way. Later, when the boy began crying as his grandmother was dying, Augustine scolded him. I just don't see any need to exaggerate the saintly aspects of Augustine's post-conversion behavior, when his primary importance was in the realm of philosophy.Rose bartram (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no "Catholic" and "Orthodox" Christianity. This was hundreds of years before the East-West Schism. If you want to say he changed some of his beliefs on issues that somewhat divided Christendom, that may be true. To claim that these two modern denominations existed and that he switched between them is absurd. It's not even clear that the change in question rises to the level of what a would be called a "conversion". Savidan 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "conversion" wasn't quite of the kind we today think of by those terms, although he seems to have described it as a "conversion" by the standards of his time. Certainly, the gnostic tendencies of Manichaeism would be such that most Christians alive today would question their being "Christian". So I think it has to be counted as a "conversion" in at least his religious principles, if not necessarily in every one of the beliefs of the systems involved. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the original Latin Confessions with references before me and I can therefore say that is not what Saint Augustine says about it. He "plays" heavely on the words Formis and Deformis, regarding the difference.

If one is not aware of how Saint Augustine went into the depts of secularism, one will not appreciate the struggle he went through, and how hard it was for him to give up the "old world" he left, and what it was that drove him towards betterment, and perfection.

Yes, Saint Augustine had a great struggle with "the toys", giving up the beautiful things of the world and apparently had some back-sliding, before he made his complete conversion. Our ancestors played little of this and does hot give credit to the figure of Saint Augustine. The more we know about the sinful life (deformis) of Saint Augustine prior to his complete conversion, the more will he show us of the step he took and how available it is to us, who struggle with the world, and any addiction.

By making his Confessions he was declaring to the world that he was formally leaving the "old world" behind. Placing "his colours on the mast", we might say today. So his confessions are particularly important in understanding him. So, if I can make a comparison, the Confessions are as important to understanding the figure of Saint Augustine as "the Red Book (Jung)", we believe, is to understanding Carl Gustav Jung.

Saint Augustine, post conversion, and as bishop of Hippo, wrote many works, and in reading them one can see that his step was not merely philosophy.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a very good article page on the Conversion of Paul i.e.: Saint Paul, as well as St. Paul of Tarsus, and St. Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We, today, would be worried for providing for the children he fathered, and what may have happened. I did notice that when his mother died, his son died sometime later and I noticed the comment that Saint Augustine now was alone in the world. This gives us a good understanding of his life then.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Had a chat today with knowledged people of Saint Augustine and put the opinion that perhaps I am making too much of The Conversion History of Saint Augustine, giving them my opinion and outlining the opinions given above that I'm responding to. They reiterated the magnitude of Saint Augustine, and reminded me that he was 40 years Bishop at Hippo and of Hippo.

They assured me that his Conversion was of that magnitude.

His writings as Bishop are remarkable and profound. The Encyclopedic entries on him are lengthy in comparison to other entries.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used, in my work situation, the process of Saint Augustine's conquering of addiction to good effect. There is a definitive pattern here, and I believe, this can be used to help here.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article page under the heading: "His views on lust", and references from the confessions here.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is accurate to say he converted to Catholicism. The term Catholic Church was used by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna around 106 (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8) to designate the universal church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), as opposed to what Ignatius considered heretics of his time such as Augustine's earlier ecclesial association. The term is also used in the same fashion in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 and in the Muratorian fragment, about 177. Mamalujo (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was thinking how the article page would read to the enquiring modern mind and so little material on the Conversion itself. This point seemed, for me, to pale into insignificance in the light of the study on the Confessions themselves and how little they were considered, after all, studying the originals in their original language this point was forgotten about, by me! If this point were made in the article page itself then it would'nt look so bleek! Thank you for discovering this and for your study! Well done!

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I for one would wish you (Mamalujo), to put this studied comment in the article page where "Christanity" now sands at the section headed "Conversion". However, I am not an Editor or the originator of this article page and find great fault with it as it does not cover the conversion adequately. I have not progressed with it any further as the whole article page needs addressing from top to bottom. Good luck.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Request Comment

Saint Augustine has written quite a lot on predestination. There should be a section in the Article page to reflect this. His complete freedom from his former addiction, may have had a bearing on this.

In the article page predestination there is a section devoted to Saint Augustine's writings on this and his opinions. But nothing on this in the Saint Augustine Article page itself!

May I request that the whole Article page be rewritten with more accurate translations of his works. I suggest to quote the original Latin and Wikipedia do the translation themselves. My offer of help here has been re-buffed, I feel.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article contains Catholic bias. Of course he is a Catholic saint so this is not surprising, but to use sources like Catholic Encyclopedia and assume that it is not going to try to project its POV on to Augustine is being a bit naive. It seems to me that Augustine's opinions on free will and predestination were closer to Martin Luther than they were to what later became the traditional Catholic position.-1/19/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.90.253 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making is that predestination is not covered in the article page. I have not considered or suggested using the Catholic Encyclopedia to resolve this. In fact I have not considered making any entrance in the article page, for I want it rewritten from top to bottom. Hence, I could not be considered naive here. If I were writing on the article page I would do so with the literary form of a historian in writing history which is different to the literary form I am using now. In historical desertation and in writing Encyclopedic entry a code of writing is employed. I would want to see in reference to all sources that are relevent to the point in question. The only suggestion I made here is to use the original Latin works of Saint Augustine on this, that is in fact the last sentence of my comment.
In fact I am expecting to find that Saint Augustine on predestination could well be closer to Martin Luther's thought on this, and I would indeed give reference to this. Do remember, Saint Augustine lived from Nov 354 to Aug 430.
In my opinion the article page does not give rise to a bias at all, as it deals with Saint Augustine from a very limited coverage.
If you were to read all the entrances in the talk page and the article page you will see that the "Catholicity of Saint Augustine" is a point that was aired and the term in the Conversion paragraph remains: "..to Christanity". In fact, I think, I was the first to suggest this, and I think, change it! This sparked the comment by: "Mamalujo", who reserched this very point, and signed his comment, as I do all mine. However, your signature has come up.
MacOfJesus (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The Catholic Encyclopedia of the 30s and previous years were in access of 20 volumes and are Catholic in the subjects they dealth with rather than any bias. They at the time were considered excellent. Why not study them? The subjects were all written by professors of excellence on that subject. Why not look up some of the subjects mentioned? "Tolle,lege"?
MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the article itself in its current state is naive in using, or at least in relying on Catholic Encyclopedia. I was agreeing with you. As for the Catholic Encyclopedia, I have used it for many years and it is useful but nevertheless biased.(69.112.90.253 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

I do not expect an article page to reflect my opinion. It is intresting that you accept that Saint Augustine is a Catholic Saint, without question. That is a position I do not accept. Saint Augustine is a Saint of all and for all. I pointed out that our predecessors "played-down" the previous sinful life of Saint Augustine and this did a great disservice to him, as it does not, therefore, give witness to of his conquering of addiction. Have you seen the article page: Saint Athanasius, also a Saint of North Africa and a page that incorporates "pros and cons"? I do avoid making judgements where I can, Jesus told me!

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Augustine, antipodes and science

An editor has repeatedly tried to add the following to the section "Studying at Carthage":

Studying at Carthage turned out to be advantageous because it facilitated an encounter with the "Lord" which produced the following: THE CITY OF GOD, Book 16, chapter 9.
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form , yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For [Scripture], which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information(?); and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem." Clearly, we are gazing at the [Illumination] of the "Lord".


The above is problematic for many reasons, and the insertion has been reverted by several editors. However it occurs to me that some reference to this Augustine quote might be usefully added to the article. For example our article on Flat earth includes the following:

From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.[2] There was some debate concerning the possibility of the inhabitants of the antipodes: people imagined as separated by an impassable torrid clime were difficult to reconcile with the Christian view of a unified human race descended from one couple and redeemed by a single Christ.
Saint Augustine (354–430) argued against assuming people inhabited the antipodes:

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.[3]

Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point; Augustine continues:

It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.

Scholars of Augustine's work have traditionally understood him to have shared the common view of his educated contemporaries that the earth is spherical, in line with the quotation above, and with Augustine's famous endorsement of science in De Genesi ad litteram.[4] That tradition has, however, recently been challenged by Leo Ferrari, who concluded that many of Augustine's passing references to the physical universe imply a belief in an essentially flat earth "at the bottom of the universe".[5][6]

  1. ^ http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense&state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf
  2. ^ As depicted by the (spherical) globus cruciger, on coins by Theodosius II
  3. ^ De Civitate Dei, Book XVI, Chapter 9 — Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes, translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.; from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College
  4. ^ q:Augustine of Hippo
  5. ^ Leo Ferrari, Cosmography, in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1999, p.246
  6. ^ Leo Ferrari, Augustine's Cosmography, Augustinian Studies, 27:2 (1996), 129-177.

Also consider the passage from the Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics [4]:

One of the major scientific disputes in which Augustine took part concerned the antipodes: Are there people living on the other side of a round earth, standing upside down? He regarded it as a matter of scientific conjecture rather than direct experience, but on the basis of Scripture he decided against it; he even thought that, if there should be people there, they could not be descendants of Adam and Eve (De civ. Dei XVI, 9). The eighth-century Irish monk Fergal or Vergilius in Salzburg was notorious for taking the opposite position. Gradually the question was seen as one for scientific inquiry rather than revelation, and Augustine's position was cited by Johannes Kepler, René Descartes, and the Encyclopedists as evidence of theological obscurantism.

In fact that article above could be used more generally as the basis for a section on Augustine's scientific views, of which the discussion of "antipodes" could be a part.

Paul August ☎ 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content of the article, since I only have it watchlisted as it is a frequent target of sockpuppets of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However looking at this on procedural grounds Lancerloon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, and it seems reasonable to assume that Infiltrator-23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Semantics-A1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same editor, particularly as the IP address restoring the edit made also made this edit during the lime Lancerloon was around. So cannot you just block the lot of them for block evasion and we can wrap this up quickly? Note I am not suggesting they are sockpuppets of Historian19, just that Lancerloon is indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits and the others are evidently the same person. O Fenian (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is a separate issue, which would be best taken up elsewhere. What we should be concerned with here is what should or shouldn't be in the article. I will say however that if Lancerloon were willing to stop inserting the same same text, against editorial consensus, and is instead willing to discuss the matter here civilly, then I'd be willing to propose they be unblocked, and in fact it may well turn out that they have something useful to say on this matter. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to have a section discussing Augustine's scientific views. However, there are a few things I think we should keep in mind. First that Augustine was not exactly a scientist; his contributions are mainly to theology (and philosophy). Second, that this article is already quite long. Augustine was however a well-educated writer in his day, who did think about these things. Obviously his knowledge on scientific issues was limited as many things were yet to be discovered and information was not as easily accessible as in modern times. I therefore support making a new section of his scientific views, but would suggest to keep it brief. In addition, it may be a good idea to split this article and have sub-articles e.g. on Augustine's life and on his theology. This is however another matter. I am not exactly an expert on these things and though I am willing to contribute to this, I welcome any relevant information, including that from lancerloon/Semantics-A1/Infiltrator-23 as long as it is discussed in a civil and neutral manner. Lindert (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My I make a point here: Saint Augustine's notion of a flat vis a vie a global earth. In the ancient art before and at the time of Saint Augustine; God, The Father is often depicted holding in his hand a global earth, never a flat one. Do keep in mind that he lived from: Nov 354 to Aug 430. The reason for Saint Augustine not getting involved with scienific notions is explained in the article page under the heading "philosophy", which I quote here:
"The good Christian should beware of astrologers (Latine: mathematici) or anyone who ungodly practices divination - you should avoid them especially when they tell you true things, so that the fellowship of demons deceiving your mind may not confine you in the bonds of their company.[25]"
This was in common with opinion at the time. Any knowledge coming from a source outside The Christ, The Church or Jesus was rebuked. This point I have made already in the talk page of Saint Paul.
The original Latin suggests more than just "astrologers". The original Latin is not translated adequately, another example of the necessity of including the original Latin.


MacOfJesus (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


The Catholic Encyclopedias

Someone has suggested that in the article page of Saint Augustine that there is too much of a leaning on the Catholic Encyclopedias in this page at "Request for Comment" on the absence of a paragraph on Predestination.

Hence, I suggest that the author of the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia be highlighted in the references, as I have done for the two great Historians and Professors: Cornelius Clifford & Patrick J. Healy.

I would like to make the further point that The Catholic Encyclopedias did not write anything exept maybe the forward. It was a vehicle for enclosing the top Professor's terse work on the topics.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No criticism?

Why the complete absence of criticism of Augustines philosophical works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.68.70 (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

categorization overkill

Apparently, this article acts as a magnet for all sorts of barely relevant or dubious categories. I have tried to get rid of the most redundant or least relevant ones. For one thing, Augustine was not a convert to "Roman Catholicism", because there was no Roman Catholicism he could convert to. There was only Nicaean orthodoxy. It can be argued that he created Roman Catholicism (obviously after he converted to Christianity), but it doesn't make much sense to speak of "Roman Catholicism" any more than it makes sense to speak of "Eastern Orthodoxy" for periods predating the 11th century schism. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

extra sentence for potential future use....

Hi, I combined two paragraphs in the lede because they repeated the same information. Here is a sentence from one of them which I could not find room for in the lede at this time... Augustine was canonized by popular acclaim, and later recognized as a Doctor of the Church in 1298 by Pope Boniface VIII[citation needed]. Good luck! have fun! makeswell (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augustine_of_Hippo/Archive_3&oldid=378639795"