A
albertus_magnus
Guest
I have heard that Origen was a heretic, but he’s referenced in the CCC.
What’s up with him?
What’s up with him?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1ke
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
As the previous link shows, he advanced some heterodox views that were challenged even in his time. However, he is considered an Early Church Father because many of his views and contributions were orthodox, fitting with the spread of the Christian heritage.
You can read Pope Benedict’s two general audiences on Origen from 2007 here:
Origen (April 25, 2007)
Origen 2 (May 3, 2007)
Pope Benedict’s general audiences on the Early Church Fathers are now in book form.
You can read Pope Benedict’s two general audiences on Origen from 2007 here:
Origen (April 25, 2007)
Origen 2 (May 3, 2007)
Pope Benedict’s general audiences on the Early Church Fathers are now in book form.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I think Origen gets a bad rap. Even if he did advocate for apokatastasis (an accusation that I think warrants a fresh scholarly investigation), I cannot see that he said anything that was contrary to established Catholic doctrine during his lifetime. Teachings which were attributed to him were not formally denounced by the Church (by the Council of Constantinople) until almost 400 years after his death.
The Council was right, of course, in condemning the erroneous teaching, but I think the Council was not clearly justified in attributing these teachings to Origen.
I see no justification to call Cyprian a Saint while calling Origen a heretic. They both held views which were later determined to be heretical. But Cyprian clearly (and quite forcefully) expressed his views, while Origin’s alledged advocacy of apokatastasis is unclear and, at times, contradictory in his writings.
Origin ought to be a Saint of the Church, IMHO. At the very least, I think the Church ought to expunge the accusations made against him by Constantinople if clear and conclusive evidence of his guilt cannot be produced. The memory and reputation of the man has been tarnished for 1500 years, but the evidence against him is sketchy at best.
The Council was right, of course, in condemning the erroneous teaching, but I think the Council was not clearly justified in attributing these teachings to Origen.
I see no justification to call Cyprian a Saint while calling Origen a heretic. They both held views which were later determined to be heretical. But Cyprian clearly (and quite forcefully) expressed his views, while Origin’s alledged advocacy of apokatastasis is unclear and, at times, contradictory in his writings.
Origin ought to be a Saint of the Church, IMHO. At the very least, I think the Church ought to expunge the accusations made against him by Constantinople if clear and conclusive evidence of his guilt cannot be produced. The memory and reputation of the man has been tarnished for 1500 years, but the evidence against him is sketchy at best.
N
Not_Sure_1
Guest
Tertullian is also a father of the Church, despite the fact that in his later years, he ended up on the wrong side of the theological controversy about mercy for people who repudiated the Church during the persecutions. (I think the heresy might have been called Donatism, although that could have been another heresy entirely).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.