Why Origen?

[Jim_Baur]

Glen:

There are many great things in Origen.

He does a great job explaining the literal and spiritual aspects of the Bible.

However, if you read Augustine, Jerome, the Greek Fathers after Origen, you will be reading him anyway.

 

[glendab]

Hello Little Grain.

But you are not alone in your growth. Others who may be “smarter than [you] could ever hope to be” have approved of a goodly portion of his works, and you can look for authoritative guides for what is “safe.” (I suppose, for instance, that we can include those texts selected for the Liturgy of the Hours.)

A related alternative is to read what those guides have said about the good parts of Origen; you would then not have to read Origen’s works themselves but learn through what those guides have approved.

For example, these two addresses give an overview of Origen:

BENEDICT XVI | GENERAL AUDIENCE | St Peter’s Square | Wednesday, 25 April 2007 | “Origen of Alexandria: life and work (1)”

BENEDICT XVI | GENERAL AUDIENCE | St Peter’s Square | Wednesday, 2 May 2007 | “Origen of Alexandria: The Thought (2)”

(I also notice that the first address includes “I invite you - and so I conclude - to welcome into your hearts the teaching of this great master of faith.” This statement is an invitation, not an imposition, but I would consider it.)

Thank you for the reply. But after looking at all the anathemas on some of the things he believed and passed on to others as acceptable to believe, I personally still wouldn’t read anything he wrote on my own. ONLY if he were assigned to me as part of a class would I think of it and it wouldn’t be pleasant. And come to think of it, some of the things I did have to read in college weren’t pleasant either like Marx and Kant and Locke, etc. YUK!!! it was very “Enlightening” to say the least. I still think some of the “great minds” of the ages were a little wacko, but that’s just me. After all, 2000 years of authors in the Church gives me quite a broad selection. I got a copy of Von Hildebrand’s Transformation in Christ for Christmas that would really do me some good if I could get to it. Scripture comes to mind about chasing after puffs of wind and the vanity of vanities some chases turn out to be. I’ll keep learning about the man (Origen) though I think I’m comfortable with my choices.

I simply brought him up here to see what kind of defense he might draw from this crowd. Might do it again in the future. He is a controversial topic.

Glenda

 

[COPLAND_3]

Like Tertullian, Origen helped in some of the development of doctrine by his articulation. Tertullian coined the word ‘Trinity’, which is obviously important. Aquinas was the master of using what is good from Catholic and non-catholic authors, and the Church does so and should do so because truth is truth regardless of its source. The key is to glean what is good and reject what is wrong.

 

[jcrichton]

Okie Dokie everyone. Here’s a little something I found regarding the Church’s feeling towards Origen and his writings and those who adhere to things contained in them:

“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.”

From the Eleventh Anathema of the 5t Ecumenical Council at Constantinope ( II ) in 553 A.D. as contained in the Section called the Capitula

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

What I find in this particular anathematization is an extension of the curse, an anathema, to everything Origen wrote, either in his hand or by the hands of others. His many supporters and students actually would write for hours in a group of sometimes twenty or more as he dictated. Not only did this happen, but after he was at first condemned, his writings for years were re-written in an attempt to render them less offensive to the Church. So, simple logic says he and all he wrote were condemned and it was never lifted though many tried.

How does that render his writings acceptable today? To me, it doesn’t, nor should it. You could read what is extant today in order to study his stuff, but you cannot *agree with it *in any way.

There is also this: many, many scholars and theologians have studied his stuff, but found that things attributed to him weren’t in fact his own and were either written by someone else or one of his adherents later on and even vice-a-versa, believed to have been written by Origen but in fact were found to be of the category of the sanitized versions written by someone else.

So why Origen if all this confusion and even the possibility of incurring an anathema for reading his stuff? Why risk it? I know I’m not smart enough to play around with this fire without getting burnt.

Glenda

Hi, Glenda!

Could it be that the Church is seeking a correction, as she has done with all her children who chose a different path (as Luther), and recognizes that even when a person turns from her Teaching he/she can reject impious/heretical beliefs?

Some claim that the early Church was Christian till the emperor of Rome, Constantine, took over creating a “Roman Catholic Church;” they also claim that somehow the “true” church went into hiding (I guess for 1500 years–till Luther liberated the Holy Spirit) and that all that happened (including all Church dogma–ie: Holy Trinity) was the influence of pagans and civil government as these sought power and wealth through manipulation of the “true” Christian Faith.

God’s Holy Spirit cannot be contained by man. Christ’s Founded Church cannot be destroyed nor placed into hold till an act of a “good” man liberates her.

God’s Truth is set free not by man’s will but by God’s.

If God chose to Reveal Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, does my limitation to understand His Revelation nullifies God and His Will?

If Origen was chosen by the Holy Spirit to define doctrines of the Church, are those Revelations made void by Origen’s thirst for Divine Knowledge through his own limited understanding?

It is said that Origen chose to physically make himself a eunuch, was that not his own personal take on Scriptures or do you actually think that Christ’s Word meant that men should remove part of their anatomy in order to serve God more properly?

Man, you and I, fail miserably whenever he chose to go on his own separate way (St. John 15:1-10); it is God’s desire that we remain with Him (“without me you are/can do nothing”).

Origen’s divergence from the Gospel of Christ does not and cannot nullify God’s Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[RyanBlack]

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for the reply. I’m learning more about the guy than I knew before and that is good. Also I found out I’m wrong about his anathemas. I thought he got it **before he died **but that actually came later, post mortem. I also now know that not all of his writings were condemned. Yippie.

However, to me, personally he is still a wacko, a heretic and a schismatic and those who tried to defend him and followed his errors as if they were acceptable got into BIG trouble. His writings do not interest me in the least and since others much smarter than I could ever hope to be have warned me via their works, I’ll keep my head and not risk reading such stuff. I can learn more reading safer stuff. After all, I am responsible for me and the securing of my faith. I think I’ll protect my little mustard seed and let grow in better soil than a whole room full of Origen’s can supply.

Thanks for the help to all you guys.

Glenda

I don’t think Origen can rightly be called a schismatic. As you noted, the condemnations came after his death. He was never part of any schismatic group, so far as I’m aware.

 

[Jim_Baur]

As I said before, both East and West drank heavily from Origen. When one prays or reads the universal doctors of the Church, one is implicitly praying or reading the solid parts of Origen.

 

[glendab]

Hello JC.

Hi, Glenda!

Could it be that the Church is seeking a correction, as she has done with all her children who chose a different path (as Luther), and recognizes that even when a person turns from her Teaching he/she can reject impious/heretical beliefs?

Some claim that the early Church was Christian till the emperor of Rome, Constantine, took over creating a “Roman Catholic Church;” they also claim that somehow the “true” church went into hiding (I guess for 1500 years–till Luther liberated the Holy Spirit) and that all that happened (including all Church dogma–ie: Holy Trinity) was the influence of pagans and civil government as these sought power and wealth through manipulation of the “true” Christian Faith.

God’s Holy Spirit cannot be contained by man. Christ’s Founded Church cannot be destroyed nor placed into hold till an act of a “good” man liberates her.

God’s Truth is set free not by man’s will but by God’s.

If God chose to Reveal Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, does my limitation to understand His Revelation nullifies God and His Will?

If Origen was chosen by the Holy Spirit to define doctrines of the Church, are those Revelations made void by Origen’s thirst for Divine Knowledge through his own limited understanding?

It is said that Origen chose to physically make himself a eunuch, was that not his own personal take on Scriptures or do you actually think that Christ’s Word meant that men should remove part of their anatomy in order to serve God more properly?

Man, you and I, fail miserably whenever he chose to go on his own separate way (St. John 15:1-10); it is God’s desire that we remain with Him (“without me you are/can do nothing”).

Origen’s divergence from the Gospel of Christ does not and cannot nullify God’s Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

You bring up too many issues that aren’t relevant to this particular thread but some I’d like to comment on. Perhaps you could ask as a thread some of these questions and let me know where they are and we could discuss them.

As for the Church “correcting” its original anathematization of Origen and his teachings, once someone is anathema the only one who can undo it is that person while they are living by repenting and retracting what it is they’ve either done, taught or believed that has incurred the anathema. It is that serious a thing. In the case of Origen, his accursedness cannot be undone. He died without ever repenting of his errors. Those who defend him cannot undo that which has already occurred. He is un-redeemable.

Your comparison to Martin Luther is relevant in that I used him as an example for comparison earlier. You should read it.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Ryan.

I don’t think Origen can rightly be called a schismatic. As you noted, the condemnations came after his death. He was never part of any schismatic group, so far as I’m aware.

A Pope called him that. It is the Church’s opinion as well as mine. Read the document linked to the excerpt.

Glenda

 

[JM3]

He died without ever repenting of his errors.

Glenda

I found out I’m wrong about his anathemas. I thought he got it **before he died **but that actually came later, post mortem.

Glenda

How soon we forget. I wonder if God would rescind His mercy because of what the Church says, in two or three hundred years, about someone. Would He change that soul’s particular judgement?

 

[RyanBlack]

Hello Ryan.

A Pope called him that. It is the Church’s opinion as well as mine. Read the document linked to the excerpt.

Glenda

Origen died a member of the Church. He was anathematized as a heretic, but he never left the Church. He was never part of any schismatic group. He never left the Church. He was not a schismatic in the sense in which the term is generally used.

 

[RyanBlack]

He died without ever repenting of his errors. Those who defend him cannot undo that which has already occurred. He is un-redeemable.

I think it should be pointed out that Origen was a very pious member of the Church. He suffered tortures for the faith during the Decian persecutions–tortures that likely led to his death a few years later.

As to his dying without ever repenting of his errors, how was? He was condemned for his errors more 300 years after he died–a death he died reconciled to the Church.

Finally, in considering his anathemas, it is important to remember the extremely political nature of the Second Council of Constantinople, which was convoked by Justinian, and at which Justinian no doubt exerted undue influence. Of course, this is not to say that Origen’s writings were without errors. I can understand the anathemas against Origen’s heretical ideas; I’ve never understood the personal anathema since Origen had died in the peace of the Church, centuries before the anathema was issued.

 

[RyanBlack]

I would also add that to get an idea of the overall positive regard in which Origen is held, one only need search the Vatican webpage.

gsearch.vatican.va/search?client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date:L:d1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0&ulang=en&ip=66.60.234.165&access=p&entqr=3&entqrm=0&q=origen+inmeta:language%3Den&dnavs=inmeta:language%3Den

 

[jcrichton]

Hello JC.

You bring up too many issues that aren’t relevant to this particular thread but some I’d like to comment on. Perhaps you could ask as a thread some of these questions and let me know where they are and we could discuss them.

As for the Church “correcting” its original anathematization of Origen and his teachings, once someone is anathema the only one who can undo it is that person while they are living by repenting and retracting what it is they’ve either done, taught or believed that has incurred the anathema. It is that serious a thing. In the case of Origen, his accursedness cannot be undone. He died without ever repenting of his errors. Those who defend him cannot undo that which has already occurred. He is un-redeemable.

Your comparison to Martin Luther is relevant in that I used him as an example for comparison earlier. You should read it.

Glenda

Hi, Glenda!

The point that I was attempting was that many use historical references to denounce Catholic Teaching. They claim that the Church is not Christ’s only Founded Church and that error was allowed not only to enter but to flourish.

If we were to remove all of Origen’s writings from historical accounts then it would also be necessary to remove anything that was sound found in them. This would necessitate to expound that all Catholic Teaching related to Origen’s writings (which would include anything that was stated or used by all Catholic writers who used anything from Origen’s) must be seen as unsound.

The examples I offered were to simply illustrate how people can take anything and make a false doctrine or representation.

If you were to point out anything Origen that is heretical and show that the Church Taught that it was sound I would totally agree with you.

Though I am not versed in most anything, I offer to you on more example. It is said that Origen wrote many criticism… one particular is title “Hexapla;” he took it upon himself to present an edition of the Bible in 6 versions. Should we reject that and all of the Bibles versions that were later introduced in any comparative form since it seems that they would have some type of Origen’s influence?

I hope this clarifies my intent a little.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[glendab]

Hello Ryan.

Origen died a member of the Church. He was anathematized as a heretic, but he never left the Church. He was never part of any schismatic group. He never left the Church. He was not a schismatic in the sense in which the term is generally used.

He taught error. He believed things that though not formally condemned by the Church outright, his peers in his lifetime knew of his errors and false teaching. He believed that even the devil would eventually be saved by Christ and that ALL souls would eventually go to Heaven. He also didn’t believe that Jesus was equal to the Father, that somehow Jesus didn’t exist with the Father, that the Father created Him at some point in time. There are other things he believed and taught. You cannot be IN the Church in the spiritual sense of the word if you disbelieve what she teaches and spread error. He was run out of towns because others wouldn’t put up with his false teaching. To some this makes him heroic in his exile. He wasn’t.

Let me ask you this: if a man came up to you today and showed you his PhD in Theology and told you he’s taught theology for 20 years, and even written books on the subject, but then said the devil would even get to Heaven someday and that Jesus need the Father to create Him or that the Trinity was hogwash, would you want to sign up for his classes and ask him for spiritual direction? You cannot disbelieve the Church and be a member of her although you could sit in the pew and fake it till you die, but God isn’t fooled nor is His Church.

Centuries of folks have tried to defend Origen. The Orthodox folks use his writings a lot because his stuff is so tedious and confusing most folks give up trying to make sense of it so of course it seems deep and meaningful. But it’s still garbage. Heck, some of it wasn’t even written by him and was passed off as his by his followers and yes, he had actual followers, just like Martin Luther. That is why he was called a schismatic. He took people away from the Church. He wrote stuff that was in agreement with Church teaching when the pressure was on, but some of the other stuff he wrote is too far fetched for this gal to even consider worth my time and study.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello JC.

Hi, Glenda!

The point that I was attempting was that many use historical references to denounce Catholic Teaching. They claim that the Church is not Christ’s only Founded Church and that error was allowed not only to enter but to flourish…If you were to point out anything Origen that is heretical and show that the Church Taught that it was sound I would totally agree with you…It is said that Origen wrote many criticism… one particular is title “Hexapla;” he took it upon himself to present an edition of the Bible in 6 versions. Should we reject that and all of the Bibles versions that were later introduced in any comparative form since it seems that they would have some type of Origen’s influence?

I hope this clarifies my intent a little.

Maran atha!

Angel

No, to reject the Bible because Origen wrote a six columned version of it would be ridiculous. At the time he wrote the Hexapla, the Canon of Scripture was being formulated and wasn’t formally pronounced till much later in time, so anyone could literally write their own version and that’s what he did.

Origen is no Saint and no one in the Church ever even tried to say he was. That will never change. He introduced a study of theology that was novel and he is credited with that. He also introduced a systematic method of teaching theology that was praised but what he actually taught was error.

Thanks for your effort. It is appreciated.

Glenda

 

[JM3]

what he actually taught was error.

Glenda

And you actually know what he actually taught?

 

[agnes_therese]

As was mentioned earlier, the Catholic Encyclopedia has a very informative article on Origen and Origenism:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Origen_and_Origenism

The very last section discusses the reasons that some scholars believe the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not, in fact, anathematize Origen.

 

[RyanBlack]

Hello Ryan.

He taught error. He believed things that though not formally condemned by the Church outright, his peers in his lifetime knew of his errors and false teaching. He believed that even the devil would eventually be saved by Christ and that ALL souls would eventually go to Heaven. He also didn’t believe that Jesus was equal to the Father, that somehow Jesus didn’t exist with the Father, that the Father created Him at some point in time. There are other things he believed and taught. You cannot be IN the Church in the spiritual sense of the word if you disbelieve what she teaches and spread error. He was run out of towns because others wouldn’t put up with his false teaching. To some this makes him heroic in his exile. He wasn’t.

Let me ask you this: if a man came up to you today and showed you his PhD in Theology and told you he’s taught theology for 20 years, and even written books on the subject, but then said the devil would even get to Heaven someday and that Jesus need the Father to create Him or that the Trinity was hogwash, would you want to sign up for his classes and ask him for spiritual direction? You cannot disbelieve the Church and be a member of her although you could sit in the pew and fake it till you die, but God isn’t fooled nor is His Church.

Centuries of folks have tried to defend Origen. The Orthodox folks use his writings a lot because his stuff is so tedious and confusing most folks give up trying to make sense of it so of course it seems deep and meaningful. But it’s still garbage. Heck, some of it wasn’t even written by him and was passed off as his by his followers and yes, he had actual followers, just like Martin Luther. That is why he was called a schismatic. He took people away from the Church. He wrote stuff that was in agreement with Church teaching when the pressure was on, but some of the other stuff he wrote is too far fetched for this gal to even consider worth my time and study.

Glenda

Your view on Origen seems terribly one-sided to me. If all he wrote was such a bunch of garbage, then why is he so extensively quoted in Church teaching, and why is he generally held in such high regard? And yes, in spite of his errors, he was heroic, having suffered torture during the Decian persecution.

 

[RyanBlack]

Hello JC.

No, to reject the Bible because Origen wrote a six columned version of it would be ridiculous. At the time he wrote the Hexapla, the Canon of Scripture was being formulated and wasn’t formally pronounced till much later in time, so anyone could literally write their own version and that’s what he did.

Origen is no Saint and no one in the Church ever even tried to say he was. That will never change. He introduced a study of theology that was novel and he is credited with that. He also introduced a systematic method of teaching theology that was praised but what he actually taught was error.

Thanks for your effort. It is appreciated.

Glenda

Some of his teachings were in error. Also, it is important to keep in mind that at the time of his writings, the Church’s articulation of Christology and Trinitarian theology was in a rather early stage.

 

[glendab]

Hello JM3.

And you actually know what he actually taught?

Actually I’m in the process of learning more about him every day. But the church has known what he taught for over a thousand years and it is that information that I’m drawing mine upon.

Here is a sample: 1. IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

1. IF anyone shall say that the creation of all reasonable things includes only intelligences without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God the Word;** but that no longer desiring the sight of God**, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and **that they have taken bodies **more or less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.
2. IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that** they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil**: let him be anathema.
3. IF anyone shall say that** the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours**, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.
4. IF anyone shall say that a psychic condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that** a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic condition**, and that from a human state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or from those above and below: let him be anathema.
5. IF anyone shall say that there is** a twofold race of demons**, of which** the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, **but that it was created by the working intelligence which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being: let him be anathema.

I’ve bolded some of these passages so you can get the idea of how outrageous these ideas handed on by Origen were. He tried a synthesis of pagan (both the Greek and the Roman) gods and ideas of gods and what we believe as Catholics. This is where he started to veer off the track by “dumbing down” Catholicism so it could meet those who were polytheists where they were sort of. You can see the mix of the two if you have any understanding of Greek polytheism and how their gods mixed with humans in various forms.

'm no expert on much of anything except raisin toast and hot coffee but even I can see the gravity of the errors Origen actually taught. It got handed on for more than one generation via his students and followers and that is how the Church was made to act against him and his own later on at the Council I’ve been citing. If his mistakes weren’t promulgated and passed along as acceptable Church teaching and doctrine, they wouldn’t have had anything to anathematize now would they? He actually taught this stuff. The Council’s documents are trust worthy although more than a few scholars have challenged them in the centuries that they’ve been studied. I am not as smart as they are but I’m inclined to agree with Hefele. There are others whose opinions I agree with and accept. To me, they’re right. Origen was a heretic and a schismatic and eventually his followers were condemned along with the strange stuff they taught. History. It’s over.

Glenda