On Origen

[xristos.anesti]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can explain this man to me..

I know that he was condemned or that some of his teachings were, anyhow - what is his story?

Is he a heretic or what?

I am sorry but I really have no clue.

Thanks.

[jckstraw72]

Im pretty sure Origen believed in weird stuff like the pre-existence and translation of souls. He was from Alexandria and was influenced by Gnosticism that was influential there.

[repentant]

He is a weird one, not him personally, just his influence within the Church. Some of his views are used by the Church, but some are not. Never considered a Saint, and he was anathematized..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

http://www.comparativereligion.com/anathemas.html

[nikolayalexandroff]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can explain this man to me..

I know that he was condemned or that some of his teachings were, anyhow - what is his story?

Is he a heretic or what?

I am sorry but I really have no clue.

Thanks.
I only could adise you the book A History of Early Christian Literature by Edgar J. Goodspeed. (http://holytrinitymission.org/books/english/early_literature_godspeed.htm#_Toc20323584)

[Iacobus]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can explain this man to me..

I know that he was condemned or that some of his teachings were, anyhow - what is his story?

Is he a heretic or what?

I am sorry but I really have no clue.

Thanks.

Origen was a very complex character. To simply dismiss him based on his condemnation is too simple. In his time, he was one of the Church's greatest thinkers.

To truly understand the depth of Origen's spirituality, I would suggest reading two short pieces: "Exhortation to Martyrdom" and "Treatise on Prayer". A great deal of what you read will remind you deeply of saints who followed Origen, including St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Symeon the New Theologian.

Of course, it is dangerous business to be second guessing Councils, but I suspect his condemnation rested on fairly narrow grounds: pre-existence of souls and universal salvation. The last particularly represents a danger to the faithful. Keep in mind that St. Gregory of Nyssa skirted perilously close to the same teaching, yet is one of our greatest saints. Unlike Tertullian, with whom he is sometimes grouped, Origen never lapsed into outright heresy, and in fact died fully Orthodox within the Church. It is important to keep in mind, I think, that in the early years, before the struggle to define dogma was completed, a great many Fathers explored theological territory that we now see as outside the Church.

But having accepted Origen's condemnation, it is still possible to find a great deal of teaching that is both wholly Orthodox and spiritually profitable in his writing. Read with discernment, discuss what you read with your priest, and you will leave richer for the experience.

[Eusebios]

My understanding is that Origen was anathematized post-humously based on the fruit of some of his teachings. There are likely things to be gleaned from other of his teachings,however I generally tend to shy away from them.
In Xp,
Eusebios
:bow:

[Grigorii]

I was wondering if anyone can explain this man to me..
See Fr. John Behr The Way to Nicea it is up to date scholarship on Origen and deals with Origen's theology to some depth. Origen is the cornerstone of Nicene and Cappadocian orthodoxy.

I know that he was condemned or that some of his teachings were, anyhow - what is his story?The only condemnation which can be brought against Origen on a Universal level is the 11th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council. The condemnations of Justinian (two sets of anathemas) have been proven to be unrelated to Origen (Justinian was wrong about Origen being the source of the heresies he was condemning). These two sets of anathemas must be seen in their context and as such appear to be directed against three groups of heresies listed by Cyril of Scythopolis in The Life of Savvas and The life of Cyricus though it is unclear (at least to me) how much of Cyril's accusations are rhetoric hyperbole and how much of it was actually held by his opponents. Rhetorical hyperbole was a much used technique in those days and cannot be taken at face value without risking to misunderstand what is going on.

Though certainly heretics claiming Origen for their patron did exist such as The Book of the Holy Hierotheos by the monk Stephen Bar Sudaili who may very well have held versions of the doctrines Justinian condemned and that Cyril fights against. But I am not aware of any in-depth-study linking Stephen Bar Sudaili and with Cyril and Justinian's objections.

Returning to the 11t anathema mentioned previously, there are multiple reasons for it being a later addition to the text a summary of these reasons can be found in Origen by Cardinal Henri Crouzel. But even if Origen's name is an addition here and does not belong to actual work of the Council, his name is confirmed as that of heretic by subsequent conciliar anathemas whose authenticity is not in doubt. These anathemas confirm a condemnation that is unlikely to have taken place. But nevertheless the condemnation is there and it is testimony to what the Church considers to be heresy even if the heretics falsely claim Origen's name.

Now anathemas are a medicinal measure aimed against a heresy and a heretic to gain restoration and health. They are not infallible dogmatic statements and persons who have fallen under anathema can be restored to the Church by confession of error and confession of Orthodoxy (see Trullo 95, 102), or if his/her Orthodoxy can be established. It seems to me that recent and continued study of Origen is moving in this direction concerning his person and his actual teaching.

Is he a heretic or what?There are condemnations against him in place, so that in this sense yes he is considered as such. But concerning his actual theology it seems the objections raised against his theology do not in fact touch him. Fr. Behr and M. Harl have even made a case that Methodius of Olympus is the first to have misunderstood Origen's doctrine of foreknowledge for the doctrine of a fall in sin from a state of pre-existence of the soul. And according to my discussion with prof. Bouteneff (prof. of Dogmatics at SVS) concerning the chapter on Origen of the book he is currently writing he too has come to question that Origen in fact taught that doctrine.

Now Origen does live in a world where angels can become incarnate (he says as much in his Commentary on John) and he also believes that in some sense souls pre-exist the body (all things pre-exist in Christ as the Wisdom of God who contains within Himself the logoi or reasons of creation even "before" they are created) and that angels 'sow souls into bodies' (where Origen alludes to the idea that angels assist God in creating human beings who are of necessity incarnate beings iow this pre-existence is not chronological). These ideas Origen did not pick up from Plato, but rather from apocryphal Jewish writings such as The Prayer of Joseph (1st century), Philo of Alexandria, and even the canonical work Wisdom :
Wisdom 8, 19

"Yea, rather being good I came into a body undefiled"

The last passage which is troubling indeed if it is taken chronologically. Origen took them to be non-chronological and even as inicative of how predestination, foreknowledge and free-will are reconciled (see The Philakolia of Origen by Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, ch 25). If indeed we understand Origen in this way it is much easier to understand why so many early fathers and teachers praised him so highly and used him so unhesitatingly (with the notable exception of Evagrios who never mentioned Origen by name because his alleged legacy had become controversial in his time).

Anyway it is doubtful whether Origen's theology answers all the question he attempted to answer to a satisfactory degree. It is also to be born in mind that Origen's writings are sometimes deliberately obscure because he (like many others in his day) did not believe that immature Christians should dabble in theology that will be abstract to them since they do not (yet) have the experience of practical Christian living necessary to attain true knowledge. To Origen (as for St. Paul) what you do shapes how you think. So that one grows in knowledge of the Christian Faith as one grows in the practice of it.

Gregorios

[Knowledge3]

Anathemized.

Origen is pre-Nicea.

[Knowledge3]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can explain this man to me..

I know that he was condemned or that some of his teachings were, anyhow - what is his story?

Is he a heretic or what?

I am sorry but I really have no clue.

Thanks.

I don't think he was outright heretic.

Anyone who is under the investigation of a council is going to be in error,because we are by nature fallible and imperfect.

So therefore, what we teach or understand are fallible and imperfect ideas.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Pre-eternality of souls.

Universal salvation, even for Satan.

Highly allegorical reading of Scripture.

Slight, slight hints of Gnosticism.

He's kinda like Orthodoxy's wacky uncle that nobody really tells whose house the family is meeting at for Thanksgiving, but if he shows up they'll put up with him (as long as he isn't suggesting self-mutilation... oh yeah, he did that, too).

[jckstraw72]

Highly allegorical reading of Scripture.

yeah i forgot about that one. St. John of Damascus refers to his allegorical understanding of Genesis as a heresy.