Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Comments
As for Origen, he is not treated on the same level as Arius or Sabilius. Origen did not stand a trial, like these people, explaining and defending his teachings. Rather it was the writings attributed to him that was tried.
I seem to be under the impression that being anathema and being excommunicated are two separate things. Anathema is a far stricter punishment than excommunication implying that the person who is anathematized is a heretic and spreading false teachings. A person who is excommunicated is merely forbidden from partaking of the sacraments (a serious punishment in its own right) but not for false teachings, but more for pastoral reasons. The teachings of a person who has been anathematized are called into question whereas the teachings of a person who is excommunicated is not scrutinized that deeply. That is why Origen's teachings are still referred to. His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
Thid is right. Yet our Church does not agree with Origen regarding his teachings of Satan's salvation, the salvation of souls, and the preexistence of souls before creation.
it's best not to quote origen (unless you are writing an essay on the early church).
it's better to refer to teachings of other writers who were less controversial, like saint athanasius, saint cyril (kyrollos) and, indeed, saint john chrysostom.
but if you hear someone quoting origen, it's likely that they are quoting the bits that he said that were right, not the bits that he said that were not right. so (unless you are a bishop or a university scholar or something) you should not worry about the fact that a person is quoting origen. it's not such a big deal either way.
that's my understanding of the matter.
:)
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12120.msg143806#msg143806 date=1314560133]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
Thid is right. Yet our Church does not agree with Origen regarding his teachings of Satan's salvation, the salvation of souls, and the preexistence of souls before creation.
Origen himself stated he didn't believe in Satan's salvation. The salvation of souls is based on a potential framework. According to Origen himself, not all souls (demons) will be saved. It also does not make sense that Origen would believe in preexisence of souls before creation. His exegeses on God frequently stated he was the Creator and nothing could be created before Him. So souls couldn't exist before the Creation of the world. However, souls do exist before uniting with the body. This is clearly seen in Christ's manifestation in the Old Testament. If one wants to argue that Christ is the exception, we can still look at Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” What can God be talking about when He says, "before you were born I knew you, set you apart"? unless he is talking about Jeremiah's soul?
Like many other things we are told, we don't really examine our preconceived opinions. Have we really examined Origen's controversial doctrine or are we regurgitating what we are spoon fed? Origen's writings are controversial but not because of the doctrines themselves. They are controversial because people keep on regurgitating their opinions and pseudo-historical facts concerning Origen.
His doctrines have stood the test of time. His exegesis and monumental corpus of writings is still underexamined and underappreciated. We've only scratched the surface. We can judge Origen on 3rd party historians and his opponent's writings or we can judge him on his writings and intellect directly.
Technically speaking, Christ, Who is the incarnate Logos, had not yet been born (and therefore wasn't around until the Logos' second birth). We can talk about Christ in the Old Testament because of the union of His divinity and humanity, not because His human soul existed before His birth.
Absolutely agree with everything you said about Origen are regurgitating.
George,
I'm not sure that verse can be used to support the notion of the pre-existance of the soul. God stands outside time, so from His perspective, we have all always existed. All mankind who has ever existed, currently exists, or will ever exist, God already knows. I think that is what the verse in Jeremiah is trying to convey. As for Christ, I do not believe that the human soul of Christ existed before He became incarnate. The pre-incarnation manifestations of Christ could very well be similar to the way angels also appear in human form. They have no human soul, yet take on physical form and appear to people.
I also agree that Origen's writings were probably misinterpreted by many, and even abused by his enemies. We can only take 3rd party sources with a grain of salt as much of his writings have been lost to us: a great tragedy.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143812#msg143812 date=1314563205]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12120.msg143806#msg143806 date=1314560133]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
Thid is right. Yet our Church does not agree with Origen regarding his teachings of Satan's salvation, the salvation of souls, and the preexistence of souls before creation.
Origen himself stated he didn't believe in Satan's salvation. The salvation of souls is based on a potential framework. According to Origen himself, not all souls (demons) will be saved. It also does not make sense that Origen would believe in preexisence of souls before creation. His exegeses on God frequently stated he was the Creator and nothing could be created before Him. So souls couldn't exist before the Creation of the world. However, souls do exist before uniting with the body.
Here are Origen's own writings on the preexistence of souls:
"we are to suppose that God created so great a number of rational or intellectual creatures (or by whatever name they are to be called), which have formerly termed understandings, as he foresaw would be sufficient" (De Prinicipiis, 2.9.1).
"as no one can be a Father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom he may exercise his power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist." Did he gain more power as he created more people? Rather, "He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince" (De Prinicipiis, 1.2.10).
"If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly." Furthermore, "How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known by God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth?" (De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4).
I think St. Augustine wrote about the question of the pre-existence of the soul (in his Anti-Pelagian writings?). Would be interesting to see what he had to say there.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143879#msg143879 date=1314671881]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12120.msg143873#msg143873 date=1314667883]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143812#msg143812 date=1314563205]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12120.msg143806#msg143806 date=1314560133]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
Thid is right. Yet our Church does not agree with Origen regarding his teachings of Satan's salvation, the salvation of souls, and the preexistence of souls before creation.
Origen himself stated he didn't believe in Satan's salvation. The salvation of souls is based on a potential framework. According to Origen himself, not all souls (demons) will be saved. It also does not make sense that Origen would believe in preexisence of souls before creation. His exegeses on God frequently stated he was the Creator and nothing could be created before Him. So souls couldn't exist before the Creation of the world. However, souls do exist before uniting with the body.
Here are Origen's own writings on the preexistence of souls:
"we are to suppose that God created so great a number of rational or intellectual creatures (or by whatever name they are to be called), which have formerly termed understandings, as he foresaw would be sufficient" (De Prinicipiis, 2.9.1).
"as no one can be a Father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom he may exercise his power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist." Did he gain more power as he created more people? Rather, "He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince" (De Prinicipiis, 1.2.10).
"If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly." Furthermore, "How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known by God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth?" (De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4).
You got these references from here, didn't you? I'm going to have to read them in context to see if they actually argue the concept of the preexistence of souls, or if people can put that sort of 'twist' on them.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
To his credit, Origen had influene on many of the Church heroes like St Athanasius, St, Basil, St Gregory.
Good enough for me.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
At the same time, Origen was excommunicated by Pope Demtrius,
Pope Demetrius excommunicated him because he was ordained by another bishop without his (Pope Demetrius') permission, not for his writings. Furthermore, there is a difference between being excommunicated and being anathematized. It would also appear that Pope Heracles (the successor of Pope Demetrius) lifted the excommunication and restored Origen.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
his writings were condemned by St Makarius and St Tawfilos
Source?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143879#msg143879 date=1314671881]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12120.msg143873#msg143873 date=1314667883]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143812#msg143812 date=1314563205]
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12120.msg143806#msg143806 date=1314560133]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
His writings were not anathematized (if I recall correctly) until the Fifth Ecumenical council, a council our church does not recognize.
Thid is right. Yet our Church does not agree with Origen regarding his teachings of Satan's salvation, the salvation of souls, and the preexistence of souls before creation.
Origen himself stated he didn't believe in Satan's salvation. The salvation of souls is based on a potential framework. According to Origen himself, not all souls (demons) will be saved. It also does not make sense that Origen would believe in preexisence of souls before creation. His exegeses on God frequently stated he was the Creator and nothing could be created before Him. So souls couldn't exist before the Creation of the world. However, souls do exist before uniting with the body.
Here are Origen's own writings on the preexistence of souls:
"we are to suppose that God created so great a number of rational or intellectual creatures (or by whatever name they are to be called), which have formerly termed understandings, as he foresaw would be sufficient" (De Prinicipiis, 2.9.1).
"as no one can be a Father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom he may exercise his power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist." Did he gain more power as he created more people? Rather, "He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince" (De Prinicipiis, 1.2.10).
"If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly." Furthermore, "How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known by God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth?" (De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4).
You got these references from here, didn't you? I'm going to have to read them in context to see if they actually argue the concept of the preexistence of souls, or if people can put that sort of 'twist' on them.
Gongratulations on your detection skills lol. In all seriousness, I am not sure whether the website source of the quotations would add any value to the discussion. What is important is whether these quotes are Origen's and whether they relate to the topic we are discussing. Go ahead read them in context and see if people can put that sort of 'twist' on them
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
To his credit, Origen had influene on many of the Church heroes like St Athanasius, St, Basil, St Gregory.
Good enough for me.
Your opinion is not going to change the Church's stance
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
At the same time, Origen was excommunicated by Pope Demtrius,
Pope Demetrius excommunicated him because he was ordained by another bishop without his (Pope Demetrius') permission, not for his writings. Furthermore, there is a difference between being excommunicated and being anathematized. It would also appear that Pope Heracles (the successor of Pope Demetrius) lifted the excommunication and restored Origen.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143880#msg143880 date=1314672560]
his writings were condemned by St Makarius and St Tawfilos
Source?
Tarikh Al Rahbaana fe misr (The History of Monasticism in Egypt) by Fr. Matta Wl Meskeen, Bostan Al Rohban
So after reading through the quotes in context, I came across something that I thought was worthwhile to share:
[quote=De Principiis Book II]Chapter 8. On the Soul (Anima).
1. The order of our arrangement now requires us, after the discussion of the preceding subjects, to institute a general inquiry regarding the soul; and, beginning with points of inferior importance, to ascend to those that are of greater. Now, that there are souls in all living things, even in those which live in the waters, is, I suppose, doubted by no one. For the general opinion of all men maintains this; and confirmation from the authority of holy Scripture is added, when it is said that "God made great whales, and every living creature that moves which the waters brought forth after their kind." It is confirmed also from the common intelligence of reason, by those who lay down in certain words a definition of soul. For soul is defined as follows: a substance φανταστική and ὁρμητική, which may be rendered into Latin, although not so appropriately, sensibilis et mobilis. This certainly may be said appropriately of all living beings, even of those which abide in the waters; and of winged creatures too, this same definition of animamay be shown to hold good. Scripture also has added its authority to a second opinion, when it says, "You shall not eat the blood, because the life of all flesh is its blood; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh;" in which it intimates most clearly that the blood of every animal is its life. And if any one now were to ask how it can be said with respect to bees, wasps, and ants, and those other things which are in the waters, oysters and ****les, and all others which are without blood, and are most clearly shown to be living things, that the "life of all flesh is the blood," we must answer, that in living things of that sort the force which is exerted in other animals by the power of red blood is exerted in them by that liquid which is within them, although it be of a different colour; for colour is a thing of no importance, provided the substance be endowed with life. That beasts of burden or cattle of smaller size are endowed with souls, there is, by general assent, no doubt whatever. The opinion of holy Scripture, however, is manifest, when God says, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, four-footed beasts, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind." And now with respect to man, although no one entertains any doubt, or needs to inquire, yet holy Scripture declares that "God breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a living soul." It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic order whether they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting the other divine and celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite kind. We nowhere, indeed, find any authority in holy Scripture for asserting that either the angels, or any other divine spirits that are ministers of God, either possess souls or are called souls, and yet they are felt by very many persons to be endowed with life. But with regard to God, we find it written as follows: "And I will put My soul upon that soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among his people;" and also in another passage, "Your new moons, and sabbaths, and great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays, and festal days, My soul hates." And in the twenty-second Psalm, regarding Christ— for it is certain, as the Gospel bears witness, that this Psalm is spoken of Him— the following words occur: "O Lord, be not far from helping me; look to my defence: O God, deliver my soul from the sword, and my beloved one from the hand of the dog;" although there are also many other testimonies respecting the soul of Christ when He tabernacled in the flesh.
2. But the nature of the incarnation will render unnecessary any inquiry into the soul of Christ. For as He truly possessed flesh, so also He truly possessed a soul. It is difficult indeed both to feel and to state how that which is called in Scripture the soul of God is to be understood; for we acknowledge that nature to be simple, and without any intermixture or addition. In whatever way, however, it is to be understood, it seems, meanwhile, to be named the soul of God; whereas regarding Christ there is no doubt. And therefore there seems to me no absurdity in either understanding or asserting some such thing regarding the holy angels and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of soul appears applicable also to them. For who can rationally deny that they are "sensible and moveable?" But if that definition appear to be correct, according to which a soul is said to be a substance rationally "sensible and moveable," the same definition would seem also to apply to angels. For what else is in them than rational feeling and motion? Now those beings who are comprehended under the same definition have undoubtedly the same substance. Paul indeed intimates that there is a kind of animal-man who, he says, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, but declares that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems to him foolish, and that he cannot understand what is to be spiritually discerned. In another passage he says it is sown an animal body, and arises a spiritual body, pointing out that in the resurrection of the just there will be nothing of an animal nature. And therefore we inquire whether there happen to be any substance which, in respect of its being anima, is imperfect. But whether it be imperfect because it falls away from perfection, or because it was so created by God, will form the subject of inquiry when each individual topic shall begin to be discussed in order. For if the animal man receive not the things of the Spirit of God, and because he is animal, is unable to admit the understanding of a better, i.e., of a divine nature, it is for this reason perhaps that Paul, wishing to teach us more plainly what that is by means of which we are able to comprehend those things which are of the Spirit, i.e., spiritual things, conjoins and associates with the Holy Spirit an understanding rather than a soul. For this, I think, he indicates when he says, "I will pray with the spirit, I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with the understanding also." And he does not say that "I will pray with the soul," but with the spirit and the understanding. Nor does he say, "I will sing with the soul," but with the spirit and the understanding.
3. But perhaps this question is asked, If it be the understanding which prays and sings with the spirit, and if it be the same which receives both perfection and salvation, how is it that Peter says, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls?" If the soul neither prays nor sings with the spirit, how shall it hope for salvation? Or when it attains to blessedness, shall it be no longer called a soul? Let us see if perhaps an answer may be given in this way, that as the Saviour came to save what was lost, that which formerly was said to be lost is not lost when it is saved; so also, perhaps, this which is saved is called a soul, and when it has been placed in a state of salvation will receive a name from the Word that denotes its more perfect condition. But it appears to some that this also may be added, that as the thing which was lost undoubtedly existed before it was lost, at which time it was something else than destroyed, so also will be the case when it is no longer in a ruined condition. In like manner also, the soul which is said to have perished will appear to have been something at one time, when as yet it had not perished, and on that account would be termed soul, and being again freed from destruction, it may become a second time what it was before it perished, and be called a soul. But from the very signification of the name soul which the Greek word conveys, it has appeared to a few curious inquirers that a meaning of no small importance may be suggested. For in sacred language God is called a fire, as when Scripture says, Our God is a consuming fire. Respecting the substance of the angels also it speaks as follows: "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning fire;" and in another place, "The angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire in the bush." We have, moreover, received a commandment to be "fervent in spirit;" by which expression undoubtedly the Word of God is shown to be hot and fiery. The prophet Jeremiah also hears from Him, who gave him his answers, "Behold, I have given My words into your mouth a fire." As God, then, is a fire, and the angels a flame of fire, and all the saints are fervent in spirit, so, on the contrary, those who have fallen away from the love of God are undoubtedly said to have cooled in their affection for Him, and to have become cold. For the Lord also says, that, "because iniquity has abounded, the love of many will grow cold." Nay, all things, whatever they are, which in holy Scripture are compared with the hostile power, the devil is said to be perpetually finding cold; and what is found to be colder than he? In the sea also the dragon is said to reign. For the prophet intimates that the serpent and dragon, which certainly is referred to one of the wicked spirits, is also in the sea. And elsewhere the prophet says, "I will draw out my holy sword upon the dragon the flying serpent, upon the dragon the crooked serpent, and will slay him." And again he says: "Even though they hide from my eyes, and descend into the depths of the sea, there will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them." In the book of Job also, he is said to be the king of all things in the waters. The prophet threatens that evils will be kindled by the north wind upon all who inhabit the earth. Now the north wind is described in holy Scripture as cold, according to the statement in the book of Wisdom, "That cold north wind;" Sirach 43:20 which same thing also must undoubtedly be understood of the devil. If, then, those things which are holy are named fire, and light, and fervent, while those which are of an opposite nature are said to be cold; and if the love of many is said to wax cold; we have to inquire whether perhaps the name soul, which in Greek is termed ψυχή, be so termed from growing cold out of a better and more divine condition, and be thence derived, because it seems to have cooled from that natural and divine warmth, and therefore has been placed in its present position, and called by its present name. Finally, see if you can easily find a place in holy Scripture where the soul is properly mentioned in terms of praise: it frequently occurs, on the contrary, accompanied with expressions of censure, as in the passage, "An evil soul ruins him who possesses it;" Sirach 6:4 and, "The soul which sins, it shall die." For after it has been said, "All souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine," it seemed to follow that He would say, "The soul that does righteousness, it shall be saved," and "The soul which sins, it shall die." But now we see that He has associated with the soul what is censurable, and has been silent as to that which was deserving of praise. We have therefore to see if, perchance, as we have said is declared by the name itself, it was called ψυχή, i.e., anima, because it has grown cold from the fervour of just things, and from participation in the divine fire, and yet has not lost the power of restoring itself to that condition of fervour in which it was at the beginning. Whence the prophet also appears to point out some such state of things by the words, "Return, O my soul, unto your rest." From all which this appears to be made out, that the understanding, falling away from its status and dignity, was made or named soul; and that, if repaired and corrected, it returns to the condition of the understanding.
4. Now, if this be the case, it seems to me that this very decay and falling away of the understanding is not the same in all, but that this conversion into a soul is carried to a greater or less degree in different instances, and that certain understandings retain something even of their former vigour, and others again either nothing or a very small amount. Whence some are found from the very commencement of their lives to be of more active intellect, others again of a slower habit of mind, and some are born wholly obtuse, and altogether incapable of instruction. Our statement, however, that the understanding is converted into a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader must carefully consider and settle for himself, as these views are not be regarded as advanced by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as opinions, treated in the style of investigation and discussion. Let the reader take this also into consideration, that it is observed with regard to the soul of the Saviour, that of those things which are written in the Gospel, some are ascribed to it under the name of soul, and others under that of spirit. For when it wishes to indicate any suffering or perturbation affecting Him, it indicates it under the name of soul; as when it says, "Now is My soul troubled;" and, "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death;" and, "No man takes My soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself." Into the hands of His Father He commends not His soul, but His spirit; and when He says that the flesh is weak, He does not say that the soul is willing, but the spirit: whence it appears that the soul is something intermediate between the weak flesh and the willing spirit.
5. But perhaps some one may meet us with one of those objections which we have ourselves warned you of in our statements, and say, "How then is there said to be also a soul of God?" To which we answer as follows: That as with respect to everything corporeal which is spoken of God, such as fingers, or hands, or arms, or eyes, or feet, or mouth, we say that these are not to be understood as human members, but that certain of His powers are indicated by these names of members of the body; so also we are to suppose that it is something else which is pointed out by this title— soul of God. And if it is allowable for us to venture to say anything more on such a subject, the soul of God may perhaps be understood to mean the only-begotten Son of God. For as the soul, when implanted in the body, moves all things in it, and exerts its force over everything on which it operates; so also the only-begotten Son of God, who is His Word and Wisdom, stretches and extends to every power of God, being implanted in it; and perhaps to indicate this mystery is God either called or described in Scripture as a body. We must, indeed, take into consideration whether it is not perhaps on this account that the soul of God may be understood to mean His only-begotten Son, because He Himself came into this world of affliction, and descended into this valley of tears, and into this place of our humiliation; as He says in the Psalm, "Because You have humiliated us in the place of affliction." Finally, I am aware that certain critics, in explaining the words used in the Gospel by the Saviour, "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death," have interpreted them of the apostles, whom He termed His soul, as being better than the rest of His body. For as the multitude of believers is called His body, they say that the apostles, as being better than the rest of the body, ought to be understood to mean His soul.
We have brought forward as we best could these points regarding the rational soul, as topics of discussion for our readers, rather than as dogmatic and well-defined propositions. And with respect to the souls of animals and other dumb creatures, let that suffice which we have stated above in general terms.Source
So while Origen suggested the possibility of the preexistence of souls, he does note that is is just an opinion and not dogmatic.
No one is arguing that Origen's excommunication should be lifted or we should disregard the Church's stand. But to simply throw out his entire work, assumingly based on false statements that Origen supposedly claimed or taught, is foolish. Very few have been able to philosophize and contribute to Christian thought as Origen did.
Origen was excommunicated for clerical reasons, not doctrine. Read Cephas' comment that he posted on August 28 again.
No one is arguing that Origen's excommunication should be lifted or we should disregard the Church's stand. But to simply throw out his entire work, assumingly based on false statements that Origen supposedly claimed or taught, is foolish. Very few have been able to philosophize and contribute to Christian thought as Origen did.
His writings were condemned by St.Tawfilos and those who went after them. St Makrios also condemned his writings.
I am not saying we treat him like Nestorious or Arius but we have to be careful when we read his writings.
Thirdly, we have to be careful about everything we read. Why only be cautious with Origen's writings based on supposed heresy? Why not train ourselves in patristics and learn how to evaluate anybody's philosophies, whether Orthodox saint or not?
Pope Theophilus excommunicated the Tall Brothers for their Incorporealist beliefs, which he claimes was Origenism. Origenism is not the same as actual teaching of Origen. Secondly, it would be nice to actually read Pope Theophilus' and St Macarius' condemnation from their own words and then see if actually would apply to Origen. My guess is that Abouna Matta al-Maskeen also repeated what he heard against Origen. If he has actual references, then please share.
Thirdly, we have to be careful about everything we read. Why only be cautious with Origen's writings based on supposed heresy? Why not train ourselves in patristics and learn how to evaluate anybody's philosophies, whether Orthodox saint or not?
Yes we have to be careful with everything we read from authors who have been condemned. There are writings that we do not need to be cautious like those of St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Sawiros.
Origen was condemned for his misguided beliefs regarding the pre-existence of souls, salvation of souls after death and the salvation of Satan.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144041#msg144041 date=1314908418]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12120.msg144039#msg144039 date=1314908108]
Origen was excommunicated for clerical reasons, not doctrine. Read Cephas' comment that he posted on August 28 again.
No one is arguing that Origen's excommunication should be lifted or we should disregard the Church's stand. But to simply throw out his entire work, assumingly based on false statements that Origen supposedly claimed or taught, is foolish. Very few have been able to philosophize and contribute to Christian thought as Origen did.
His writings were condemned by St.Tawfilos and those who went after them. St Makrios also condemned his writings.
I am not saying we treat him like Nestorious or Arius but we have to be careful when we read his writings.
Can you provided excerpts from these sources for us to see what Sts. Theophilus and Makarious actually wrote regarding Origen?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144041#msg144041 date=1314908418]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12120.msg144039#msg144039 date=1314908108]
Origen was excommunicated for clerical reasons, not doctrine. Read Cephas' comment that he posted on August 28 again.
No one is arguing that Origen's excommunication should be lifted or we should disregard the Church's stand. But to simply throw out his entire work, assumingly based on false statements that Origen supposedly claimed or taught, is foolish. Very few have been able to philosophize and contribute to Christian thought as Origen did.
His writings were condemned by St.Tawfilos and those who went after them. St Makrios also condemned his writings.
I am not saying we treat him like Nestorious or Arius but we have to be careful when we read his writings.
Can you provided excerpts from these sources for us to see what Sts. Theophilus and Makarious actually wrote regarding Origen?
Thank you so much Kephas for this question for it allowed me to research in more depth of Origen and Origenism.
Throughout my research, I have discovered that Origen ideas actually gave rise to Arianism and a host of other heresies. I will not go into much detail but give a sample of texts from various saints who opposed him. It is also noteworthy to know that the Church of Alexandria (the Coptic Church) had excommunicated him during his life based on his teachings and not, as I previously thought, on technicality.
Here are the texts:
St Tawfilos:
There are full texts by St Tawfilos in the book (Tawfilos of Alexandria By Norman Russell) which include his festal letters, synodical letters and letters to others defending the faith against Origen's doctrine.
Synodical letter by Pope Tawfilus to the bishops of Palestine and of Cyprus:
"To the well-beloved lords, brothers, and fellow-bishops, Eulogius, John, Zebianus, Auxentius, Dionysius, Gennadius, Zeno, Theodosius, Dicterius, Porphyry, Saturninus, Alan, Paul, Ammonius, Helianus, Eusebius, the other Paul, and to all the Catholic bishops gathered together at the dedication festival of Aelid,
Tawfilos (sends) greeting in the Lord.
The Cyprians were addresses thus:
To the well-beloved lords, brothers, and fellow-bishops, Epiphanies, Marcianus, Agapetus, Boethius, Helpidius, Entasius, Norbanus, Macedonius, Aristo, Zeno, Asiaticus, Heraclides, the other Zeno, Cyriacus, and Aphroditus,
Tawfilos (sends) greeting in the Lord.
The scope of the letter:
"We have personally visited the monasteries of Nitria and find that the Origenistic heresy has made great ravages among them. It is accompanied by a strange fanaticism: men even maim themselves or cut out their tongues to show how they despise the body.I find that some men of this kind have gone from Egypt into Syria and other countries where they speak against us and the truth. The books of Origen have been read before a council of bishops and unanimously condemned. The following are his chief errors, mainly found in the "Peri Archon" (De Principiis)":
1. The Son compared with us is truth, but compared with the Father he is falsehood.
2. Christ’s kingdom will one day come to an end.
3. We ought to pray to the Father alone, not to the Son.
4. Our bodies after the resurrection will be corruptible and mortal.
5. There is nothing perfect even in heaven; the angels themselves are faulty, and some of them feed on the Jewish sacrifices.
6. The stars are conscious of their own movements, and the demons know the future by their courses.
7. Magic, if real, is not evil.
8. Christ suffered once for men; he will suffer again for the demons.
The Origenists have tried to coerce me; they have even stirred up the heathen by denouncing the destruction of the Serapeum; and have sought to withdraw from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction two persons accused of grave crimes. One of these is the woman who was wrongly placed on the list of widows by Isidore, the other Isidore himself. He is the standard-bearer of the heretical faction, and his wealth supplies them with unbounded resources for their violent enterprises. They have tried to murder me; they seized the monastery church at Nitria, and for a time prevented the bishops from entering and the offices from being performed. Now, like Zebul (Beelzebub) they go to and fro on the earth. I have done them no harm; I have even protected them. But I would not let an old friendship (with Isidore) impair our faith and discipline. I implore you to oppose them whenever they come, and to prevent them from unsettling the brethren committed to you."
Reply to the above letter by the synod of Jerusalem:
"The following is an epitome: We have done all that you wished, and Palestine is almost wholly free from the taint of heresy. We wish that not only the Origenists, but Jews, Samaritans and heathen also, could be put down. Origenism does not exist among us. The doctrines you describe are never heard here. We anathematize those who hold such doctrines, and also those of Apollinaris, and shall not receive anyone whom you excommunicate."
St Jerome:
St. Jerome sent a letter to the most blessed Tawfilos, Pope of Alexandria, in which he congratulates the Pope on the success of his crusade against Origenism.
Jerome to the most blessed Pope Tawfilos...
"I write a few lines to congratulate you on your success. The whole world glories in your victories. An exultant crowd of all nations gazes on the standard of the cross raised by you in Alexandria and upon the shinning trophies which mark your triumph over heresy. Blessings on your courage! Blessings on your zeal! You have shown that your long silence has been due to policy and not to inclination..."
Letter to Vigilantius
"Origen is a heretic, true; but what does that take from me who do not deny that on very many points he is heretical? He has erred concerning the resurrection of the body, he has erred concerning the condition of souls, he has erred by supposing it possible that the devil may repent, and- an error more important then these- he has declared in his commentary upon Isaiah that the Seraphim mentioned by the prophet are the divine Son and the Holy Ghost. If I did not allow that he has erred or if I did not daily anathematize his errors, I should be partaker of his fault.
For while we receive what is good in his writings we must on no account bind ourselves to accept also what is evil. Still in many passages he has interpreted the Scriptures well, has explained obscure places in the prophets, and has brought to light very great mysteries, both in the Old and in the New testament."
St Epihanius:
"dangerous and more wicked than all ancient ones, ... expresses a mentality like him," and provides the basic pattern for the subsequent aberrations of "Arius, the Amonians..., and others."[Adv. Haereses," "Panarion" (The Medicine-chest)]
Letter of St Epiphanius to St John bishop of Jerusalem:
"For I see that all your indignation has been roused against me simply because I have told you that you ought not to eulogize one who is the spiritual father of Arius, and the root and parent of all heresies. And when I appealed to you not to go astray, and warned you of the consequences, you traversed my words, and reduced me to tears and sadness; and not me only, but many other Catholics who were present.
Can any one, moreover, brook Origen’s assertion that men’s souls were once angels in heaven, and that having sinned in the upper world, they have been cast down into this, and have been confined in bodies as in barrows or tombs, to pay the penalty for their former sins; and that the bodies of believers are not temples of Christ, but prisons of the condemned?
Again, he tampers with the true meaning of the narrative by a false use of allegory, multiplying words without limit; and undermines the faith of the simple by the most varied arguments."
Pope Dioscorus
Letter to The Memorandum of the Archbishop to the most pious Bishops Sabinus, Gennadius and Hermogenes:
"For it is no trifling matter that we are in fear of (the spread of Origenism among the monks in the diocese of Shmin); but they are matters of prime importance; and if any one were [merely] to assert that Helias is a soul-destroying corrupter he would not be able to alter him by what he says; therefore we fear greatly that many may be polluted by him. The matter therefore rests with you, if he be seen anywhere or you hear where he is, to write to the bishop of that diocese and pursue him and expel him as a heretic. But if he persist, or resolve to conceal himself, it is lawful for you to apply to the judges and inform them and hand him over and let them condemn him as an offender, seeing that, having anathematized Origen and his doctrines for a time he turned to him again; and the word of the true proverb applied to him "a dog who has turned again to his vomit"; and moreover as to the convent which is called the Parembole he is not to enter its door henceforth nor to remove anything from, it either by himself or by another, nor is he to administer anything nor to remove anything among the things that appertain to the monastery. For if any such thing happen, we shall know, and nothing will be hidden from us. For we shall search into everything carefully, and more especially whatever is done in Shmin from henceforth. And let this too be made clear in order that he may not dare to face any monk whatever from this time, especially those of the Parembole, nor is anyone among those who live in it to he allowed to speak to him or to communicate with him, or on the other hand to let him communicate with them, nor shall they associate with him at all to the ruin of the monastery and its property. And whoever shall be found associating with him, let him be expelled from the holy places, the saying being applied to him "You shall be pure with the pure, you shall avoid sin with him that avoids sin and you shall err with him who errs", and further "These evil words corrupt hearts that are good". These then together with all those who wish to be of one mind with us must be strict regarding Helias; and let the memoranda which have been issued regarding him be placed in that church. But since I have heard moreover that there are books and numerous treatises of the pest named Origen and other heretics in that convent and in the former temple of Shmin and elsewhere let your Reverences inquire after them carefully and collect them and write [them one by one] and send them to us; for it God has given us power to bind."
St Shenouda:
"some say that Origen was thrown out not bcause he was a heretic but because of envy. But I maitain that he did not reveal any mystery of the scriptures. for nothing is possible to hear or concieve or develop that the prophts or theh holy apostles or the holy fathers and true teachers of the church did not fully reveal .... (Dogma and mysticism in early Christianity by Jon Frederick P. 235)
St Pakhomius and Origenism:
St Pakhomius threw a volume of Origen into the river and warned his monks against his writings (Mercy and Judgment by Frederick william Farrar P. 336)
St Makarius and Origenism:
Was walking with his disciples in the wilderness .. he stopped and asked them if they smell an offensive odor. No one did except him. He then told them that one of them was carrying Origen's writengs and ordered them to burn them. (Bostan Al Rohban and Tarihk al Rahbana by Fr. Matta Al Meskeen)
Once again, you have very selective reading. Even in the book by Fr. Tadros Malaty that you quote from, he lists saints who praise or were deeply influenced by Origen. Source
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
Throughout my research, I have discovered that Origen ideas actually gave rise to Arianism and a host of other heresies.
Funny, Arius may have used Origen to teach that Christ was not of the same nature as the Father, but St. Athanasius also used Origen to disprove Arius: Source
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
I will not go into much detail but give a sample of texts from various saints who opposed him.
Yeah, it's not necessary.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
It is also noteworthy to know that the Church of Alexandria (the Coptic Church) had excommunicated him during his life based on his teachings and not, as I previously thought, on technicality.
Where is your evidence for this? And if you refer to Fr. Tadros’ book, he has no reference to that claim, so you’ll have to do better.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
Throughout my research, I have discovered that Origen ideas actually gave rise to Arianism and a host of other heresies.
Funny, Arius may have used Origen to teach that Christ was not of the same nature as the Father, but St. Athanasius also used Origen to disprove Arius: Source
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
I will not go into much detail but give a sample of texts from various saints who opposed him.
Yeah, it's not necessary.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144196#msg144196 date=1315095200]
It is also noteworthy to know that the Church of Alexandria (the Coptic Church) had excommunicated him during his life based on his teachings and not, as I previously thought, on technicality.
Where is your evidence for this? And if you refer to Fr. Tadros’ book, he has no reference to that claim, so you’ll have to do better.
Whether I have "a very selective readings", as you put it, is a subjective matter. It is funny you say that when you only have one convenient source that you used.
The bottom line Origen was and still is excommunicated on doctrinal issues as I have shown. Origenism, which was based on Origen's writings, was a big problem in the first centuries and than God it was eliminated.
Origen is a brilliant theologian by fell into both clerical, spriritual and dogmatic issues and for this he was excommunicated by the Church of Alexandria and later by the Church of Constanople and Rome.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
The bottom line Origen was and still is excommunicated on doctrinal issues as I have shown.
No you haven't. Show me where it says that the Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen for doctrinal reasons. Eusebius and St. Jerome say otherwise (as the article on Origen and Origenism states). So unless you have a source, your word is not credible.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origenism, which was based on Origen's writings, was a big problem in the first centuries and than God it was eliminated.
A big problem in the first century? I think you need to brush up on your history. Origen lived at the end of the second century/beginning of the third century, so how exactly could Origenism have existed prior to him having even been born? Assuming you meant the third century, that is also wrong. Origenism was not a problem until the first Origenism Crisis at the time of St. John Chrysostom (about a century after Origen himself had died).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origen is a brilliant theologian by fell into both clerical, spriritual and dogmatic issues and for this he was excommunicated by the Church of Alexandria and later by the Church of Constanople and Rome.
Pope Demetrius excommunicated Origen because he was ordained by another bishop, not for his doctrine. You have not provided any sources that state he was excommunicated during his lifetime because of his doctrine. The fact that there is no mention of Origenism being a doctrine that was anathematized until the fifth Ecumenical Council (a council we do not recognize, and was held over 3 centuries after Origen's death) is pretty telling. Further, Origen was not alive to defend himself, in the way that Arius and Nestorius were alive and able to defend/explain themselves before a Council of bishops (and then condemned). People can always misinterpret and misrepresent a person's works, especially after they are dead and unable to defend themselves. The question remains, if Origen were alive and if others had tried to correct him, would he have accepted it, or been like Arius and Nestorius? Sadly, we'll never know.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
The bottom line Origen was and still is excommunicated on doctrinal issues as I have shown.
No you haven't. Show me where it says that the Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen for doctrinal reasons. Eusebius and St. Jerome say otherwise (as the article on Origen and Origenism states). So unless you have a source, your word is not credible.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origenism, which was based on Origen's writings, was a big problem in the first centuries and than God it was eliminated.
A big problem in the first century? I think you need to brush up on your history. Origen lived at the end of the second century/beginning of the third century, so how exactly could Origenism have existed prior to him having even been born? Assuming you meant the third century, that is also wrong. Origenism was not a problem until the first Origenism Crisis at the time of St. John Chrysostom (about a century after Origen himself had died).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origen is a brilliant theologian by fell into both clerical, spriritual and dogmatic issues and for this he was excommunicated by the Church of Alexandria and later by the Church of Constanople and Rome.
Pope Demetrius excommunicated Origen because he was ordained by another bishop, not for his doctrine. You have not provided any sources that state he was excommunicated during his lifetime because of his doctrine. The fact that there is no mention of Origenism being a doctrine that was anathematized until the fifth Ecumenical Council (a council we do not recognize, and was held over 3 centuries after Origen's death) is pretty telling. Further, Origen was not alive to defend himself, in the way that Arius and Nestorius were alive and able to defend/explain themselves before a Council of bishops (and then condemned). People can always misinterpret and misrepresent a person's works, especially after they are dead and unable to defend themselves. The question remains, if Origen were alive and if others had tried to correct him, would he have accepted it, or been like Arius and Nestorius? Sadly, we'll never know.
The Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen while he was still living.
Read:
The history of the Christian religion and the church Volume 2 starting on page 387
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
The bottom line Origen was and still is excommunicated on doctrinal issues as I have shown.
No you haven't. Show me where it says that the Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen for doctrinal reasons. Eusebius and St. Jerome say otherwise (as the article on Origen and Origenism states). So unless you have a source, your word is not credible.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origenism, which was based on Origen's writings, was a big problem in the first centuries and than God it was eliminated.
A big problem in the first century? I think you need to brush up on your history. Origen lived at the end of the second century/beginning of the third century, so how exactly could Origenism have existed prior to him having even been born? Assuming you meant the third century, that is also wrong. Origenism was not a problem until the first Origenism Crisis at the time of St. John Chrysostom (about a century after Origen himself had died).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
Origen is a brilliant theologian by fell into both clerical, spriritual and dogmatic issues and for this he was excommunicated by the Church of Alexandria and later by the Church of Constanople and Rome.
Pope Demetrius excommunicated Origen because he was ordained by another bishop, not for his doctrine. You have not provided any sources that state he was excommunicated during his lifetime because of his doctrine. The fact that there is no mention of Origenism being a doctrine that was anathematized until the fifth Ecumenical Council (a council we do not recognize, and was held over 3 centuries after Origen's death) is pretty telling. Further, Origen was not alive to defend himself, in the way that Arius and Nestorius were alive and able to defend/explain themselves before a Council of bishops (and then condemned). People can always misinterpret and misrepresent a person's works, especially after they are dead and unable to defend themselves. The question remains, if Origen were alive and if others had tried to correct him, would he have accepted it, or been like Arius and Nestorius? Sadly, we'll never know.
The Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen while he was still living.
Read:
The history of the Christian religion and the church Volume 2 starting on page 387
Look at A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines P. 100
Look at The Westminster handbook to Origen P. 70
Also refer to This
This statement:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144249#msg144249 date=1315272961]
The Church of Alexandria excommunicated Origen while he was still living.
is not the same as this statement:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144246#msg144246 date=1315271182]
The bottom line Origen was and still is excommunicated on doctrinal issues as I have shown.
The first statement is not up for debate. We all know that. The second statement is blatantly false. Even in the reference: The History of the Christian Religion and the Church Volume 2 starting on page 387, there is a footnote on page 390 which you seem to have glossed over. In A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines P. 100 it states the following: Add to this the fact that St. Athanasius used Origen to defend against Arius, I truly fail to see how you could say that Origen was excommunicated, in life, over his doctrine. A saint like Athanasius would have never referred to a heretic of the Church to defend against Arius.
Finally, this:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg144249#msg144249 date=1315272961]
Also refer to This
doesn't add anything that we didn't already know.
By the by, thanks for posting links to your references. ::)
It has been shown that Origen was excommunicated by the Church of Alexandria during his life, a fact was disputed on this thread.
It has been shown that Origen was excommunicated for his false docrines, another fact that was disputed on this thread.
It has been shown that the premise that Origen was excommunicated because of an only clerical reason is a false premise.
At least four Alexandrian Popes either excommunicated him or anathematized his writings: Pope Demetrius, Pope Hiracles, Pope Tawfilos, and Pope Dioscorus. Famous saints opposed his writings: Saint Jerome, Saint Epiphanius, Saint Shenouda, and Saint Macarius. This list is not inclusive but is what has been discussed here.
Later, the Churches of Constantinople and Rome indirectly affirmed the decision of the Church of Alexandria to anathematize Origen's writings in the sixth century.
Origen is a brilliant scholar and the Church did benefit from him. However, he had false teachings that led the Church to banish him and his writings. As a result, a big portion of his writings are extant and the little we have, we must read carefully in light of the Church Orthodox teachings.
Thanks for all who have contributed to this thread.