St. Origen

[Jetavan]

When will Origen be recognized as a Saint?

[ialmisry]

In all likelihood, never.

[jckstraw72]

never

[Aindriú]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint. However, he did say much that is used to represent the antiquity of orthodox theology (both catholic and EO).

[Melodist]

Canon 11 from Constantinople II

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious, godless writings, and all the other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy catholic and apostolic Church, and by the aforementioned four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their godlessness persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned; let him be anathema.

[PeterTheAleut]

When will Origen be recognized as a Saint?

Why should Origen be recognized as a Saint?

[Iconodule]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint.

Well, by that same criterion St. Gregory of Nyssa wouldn't be a saint either. With Origen though, I think it's because he had so many very weird ideas, borrowed from Plato and which contradict Orthodox teaching. Apokatastasis is just the tip of the iceberg. And of course there's the condemnation by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

That said, Origen is worthy of our respect, as his writings on spirtuality had a decisive influence on many Fathers.

[Michał Kalina]

The main reason that Origen won't be recognised as a Saint is that he castrated himself.

[recent convert]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

[Orual]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

There's no good evidence that he did. 

I don't like the fact that people keep bringing it up as evidence to condemn him.  There's a lot of question as to what he himself actually believed and taught versus what was taught in his name after he died, and people just want to retreat to the "Well, he castrated himself!" in order to maintain the status quo of Origen being condemned, and to avoid having to deal with the theological issues. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we have to declare Origen a saint or anything.  But I can't help but find it funny that such an ascetic, asexual man, who devoted his life to studying and teaching theology, would wind up being best known among future theologians for the alleged status of his genitals.   

[Michał Kalina]

Well, IMO the self-inflicted wounds are bigger objection to canonisation than theological errors. Almost all theologians made some mistakes and they are considered Saints.

[Jetavan]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint. However, he did say much that is used to represent the antiquity of orthodox theology (both catholic and EO).

It seems rather unfair to condemn Origen, even if he did accept apokatastasis, because during Origen's lifetime, he was never given a chance to either recant or clarify what he believed or taught. His anathema occurred centuries after his death.

One could easily argue that Origen, if told that his ideas were not consistent with the Church, would have happily obeyed any Church council. Origen, after all, always called himself a child of the Church, and never would have consciously held ideas deemed heretical.

[Jetavan]

Well, IMO the self-inflicted wounds are bigger objection to canonisation....

How do you know that he castrated himself?

[bogdan]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint.

Well, by that same criterion St. Gregory of Nyssa wouldn't be a saint either. With Origen though, I think it's because he had so many very weird ideas, borrowed from Plato and which contradict Orthodox teaching. Apokatastasis is just the tip of the iceberg. And of course there's the condemnation by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

I haven't researched it much myself, but I read here that there was a very small but important difference between St Gregory and Origen: that St Gregory expressed a strong hope for apokatastasis, but Origen asserted it with certainty.

That said, Origen is worthy of our respect, as his writings on spirtuality had a decisive influence on many Fathers.

Indeed.

[Father H]

It isn't just about apokatastasis.  Gregory of Nyssa did not have bad anthropology--Origen did.  And this was the councils first concern, as we see it in the first of its anathemas.   Origen taught the pre-existence of souls, and worse yet, the men and material flesh only came about, not because of the will of God, but as the result of their sinful desire not to see the face of God.   For Origen the man is not body and soul, but the sole hidden in the "trap" of a body because his love for God grew cold and hid there!   That Origin is a heretic has little to do with the fact of restoration and much to do with the fact that he taught and upheld a completely dangerous view of creation, man and the Incarnation and whole of soteriology.   He taught not only restoration but also that the personhood of each human person will "disappear" and all be absorbed into the Godhead.   This is more Hinduism than it is Christianity.   

[Jetavan]

That Origin is a heretic....

But doesn't someone's status as heretic depend upon that person maintaining ideas that a Church council has rejected? How could Origen be a heretic, if no one corrected his ideas while he was alive?

[Punch]

It caused me sadness to find out that Origen had been declared a heretic.  His writings were instrumental in bringing me into the Orthodox Church.  While we may not be able to pray to him (officially), I contintue to pray for him and have the utmost respect for him.

[Michał Kalina]

Well, IMO the self-inflicted wounds are bigger objection to canonisation....

How do you know that he castrated himself?

Bishop Eusebius of Ceasarea?

[Shanghaiski]

That Origin is a heretic....

But doesn't someone's status as heretic depend upon that person maintaining ideas that a Church council has rejected? How could Origen be a heretic, if no one corrected his ideas while he was alive?

The Church has made her position on the status of Origen's person. Beyond that, with regard to his writings, she takes the good and leaves the bad. Origen has not been made worthy of veneration for the good he has written, but has been condemned for the bad, and all the bad that that caused later. If we venerate him in contradiction of what the Church bids us do, we will be found disobedient. But if we follow the Church and accept what good teaching Origen provides, leave the rest, and leave aside the issue of his person because we ourselves are in no position to take it up, then we do well, I think. The matter is a settled one, as far as the Church is concerned. It was a painful decision at the time, and reconsidering it now, 1500 years later would be more difficult and dangerous--and for what? Our faith is not defined by either the person or teachings of Origen, but by Christ--His Person, teachings, and the teaching on His Person. It was for that that the 5th Council was convened, and for false teaching on that subject that Origen was condemned.

[Orual]

Well, IMO the self-inflicted wounds are bigger objection to canonisation....

How do you know that he castrated himself?

Bishop Eusebius of Ceasarea?

Who is the only source on that that I'm aware of.  Origen's contemporary enemies attributed his asexuality to drug use, and said nothing about this castration business.

[Aindriú]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint. However, he did say much that is used to represent the antiquity of orthodox theology (both catholic and EO).

It seems rather unfair to condemn Origen, even if he did accept apokatastasis, because during Origen's lifetime, he was never given a chance to either recant or clarify what he believed or taught. His anathema occurred centuries after his death.

One could easily argue that Origen, if told that his ideas were not consistent with the Church, would have happily obeyed any Church council. Origen, after all, always called himself a child of the Church, and never would have consciously held ideas deemed heretical.

I agree. Besides, St Gregory of Nyssa accepted the restoration. I think one of the key differences is that St Gregory 'hoped' in a restoration. At least in Catholicism, you are allowed to hope for a restoration as a proof of God's love. That is, God surely wouldn't turn his back on someone in hell if he happened to have a change of heart sometime in eternity. However teaching it or expecting it is another matter.

[Subdeacon Michael]

A form of this concept of a non-necessarily permanent hell may also be found in the writings of St Isaac the Syrian.

[Jonathan Gress]

Did nobody read FatherHLL's post? He makes it clear what the primary doctrinal errors that the Council condemned. Apokatastasis was not the most important error, although it was still significant.

And Shanghaiski's post is excellent, and should settle the matter. We take what is good in Origen, and leave the bad. And we don't presume to supersede the Church's judgment, which was guided by the Holy Spirit.

As for the idea that those in Hell can be saved, there is evidence that those who die in the faith can be saved from Hades through the prayers of the Church. There is also some more tentative evidence that those who die outside the faith may be saved through private prayers. I have even been told that the Russian Church has specific prayers to be read over infants who die unbaptized, but I haven't found this in Hapgood's translation of the service book. If anyone knows more about this, I'd be interested to hear about it.

So there are grounds for hoping that those outside the Church may be saved, and certainly that those who die in the Church, but who have not borne fruits worthy of repentance, may also be saved by our prayers for the dead. But in regard to the former, the Church does not take it upon herself to offer up prayers, leaving judgment to God alone.

[jnorm888]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

There's no good evidence that he did.  

I don't like the fact that people keep bringing it up as evidence to condemn him.  There's a lot of question as to what he himself actually believed and taught versus what was taught in his name after he died, and people just want to retreat to the "Well, he castrated himself!" in order to maintain the status quo of Origen being condemned, and to avoid having to deal with the theological issues.  

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we have to declare Origen a saint or anything.  But I can't help but find it funny that such an ascetic, asexual man, who devoted his life to studying and teaching theology, would wind up being best known among future theologians for the alleged status of his genitals.    

Have you read his works? I have. I was really into him back in the late 1990's to about 2002. I still respect Origen, but I agree with the condemnation.


I only asked if you read his works because you made it seem as if he never really made the errors that people say he did.

[Punch]

A form of this concept of a non-necessarily permanent hell may also be found in the writings of St Isaac the Syrian.

Yes.  In the ROCOR Book of Akathists there is a prayer for the departed that invokes the words of St. Isaac the Syrian.  It prays for all the reposed, even those who have died by suicide.  When I asked a Priest about this, I was told that our Love for our fellow man compels us to pray for all.  No Christian wishes hell on anyone, particularly those who were unaware of their error (and I certainly include Origen in this).  We pray.  We let God judge.  While I accept all Seven Ecumenical Councils, I have a problem with ex post facto anathema.  I agree that many of the writings attributed to Origen are not Orthodox, I still question if his errors preclude his eventual Salvation.  Not to mention that many scholars question if the writings condemned by the Council were indeed Origen's, or those attributed to him (falsely) by his detractors.  I will continue to pray for his salvation, and the salvation of all.  Origen is in the hands of a merciful God, as are we all.  

BTW - I have read his works, or at least those attributed to him.  I am sure that not everything I believe is Orthodox, so I am not quite willing to cast a stone at one of the men who's works brought me into the Church.  

[Jonathan Gress]

By ex post facto, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean anathematizing those who already have died? I was just reading about how Patriarch Ioannicius in 1375 sent monks to Serbia to pronounce the revocation of anathema over the grave of Tsar Dushan, who had been excommunicated, along with all Serbia, for establishing a new patriarchate without Constantinople's permission. So it seems the Church does in fact have the power to anathematize both the living and the dead, as well as to revoke those anathemas before or after death.

Actually, the text of the prayer at the end of the Akathist for the Dead says "those who took their own lives in madness of mind". There is a difference between taking your life after conscious deliberation, which is a mortal sin, and taking your life when you are unable to reason properly, in which case it is not a sin at all. The Church prays for the latter, not the former. That doesn't mean you can't offer up some personal hope in their forgiveness, but the Church as a whole does not have the authority to do this.

This is not about casting stones. There is no question of personal animus against Origen. There is only the humble acceptance of God's judgment against him, as manifested in the decision of the Ecumenical Council.

[Orual]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

There's no good evidence that he did.  

I don't like the fact that people keep bringing it up as evidence to condemn him.  There's a lot of question as to what he himself actually believed and taught versus what was taught in his name after he died, and people just want to retreat to the "Well, he castrated himself!" in order to maintain the status quo of Origen being condemned, and to avoid having to deal with the theological issues.  

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we have to declare Origen a saint or anything.  But I can't help but find it funny that such an ascetic, asexual man, who devoted his life to studying and teaching theology, would wind up being best known among future theologians for the alleged status of his genitals.    

Have you read his works? I have.

Why yes, yes, I have.  I felt he was mostly a sincere, humble preacher, who may have gone off the deep end once or twice, but very smart, and mostly just handicapped by the fact that he lived and died before a lot of the later theological debates.

I was really into him back in the late 1990's to about 2002. I still respect Origen, but I agree with the condemnation.

I only asked if you read his works because you made it seem as if he never really made the errors that people say he did.

Well, he didn't make some of them.  This is exactly why I said I think it's time to leave the whole castration thing alone and focus on figuring out, as best we can, what Origen actually taught.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue that he should be made a saint.  However, I don't think the condemnation issued against him in later centuries should be the final word on Origen, considering that the condemnation wasn't actually part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and it blamed him for stuff we no longer think Origen actually believed or taught.

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm not sure how you can be so certain that the Council did not anathematize Origen. See the following discussion:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.viii.html

What you're basically asking us to believe is that modern scholars, living many centuries after these events, and for the most part not imbued with an Orthodox mindset, happen to know more about what really happened than the God-inspired Fathers who lived at the time and experienced these events and personalities firsthand.

If you want to say the Church, i.e. the Holy Spirit, made an error of judgment, you can do so, but you'd better have some good proof.

[Orual]

I'm not sure how you can be so certain that the Council did not anathematize Origen. See the following discussion:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.viii.html

That link doesn't say anything proving it did!  Even the guy who wrote it is ambivalent on the issue.

What you're basically asking us to believe is that modern scholars, living many centuries after these events, and for the most part not imbued with an Orthodox mindset, happen to know more about what really happened than the God-inspired Fathers who lived at the time and experienced these events and personalities firsthand.

Your criticisms of "modern scholars" for their alleged lack of an Orthodox mindset are not credible to me.  Perhaps you should join the Orthodox Church yourself.

If you want to say the Church, i.e. the Holy Spirit, made an error of judgment, you can do so, but you'd better have some good proof.

The Church is the Church and didn't make a mistake.  Origen wasn't condemned by the Church.

[jnorm888]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

There's no good evidence that he did.  

I don't like the fact that people keep bringing it up as evidence to condemn him.  There's a lot of question as to what he himself actually believed and taught versus what was taught in his name after he died, and people just want to retreat to the "Well, he castrated himself!" in order to maintain the status quo of Origen being condemned, and to avoid having to deal with the theological issues.  

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we have to declare Origen a saint or anything.  But I can't help but find it funny that such an ascetic, asexual man, who devoted his life to studying and teaching theology, would wind up being best known among future theologians for the alleged status of his genitals.    

Have you read his works? I have.

Why yes, yes, I have.  I felt he was mostly a sincere, humble preacher, who may have gone off the deep end once or twice, but very smart, and mostly just handicapped by the fact that he lived and died before a lot of the later theological debates.

I was really into him back in the late 1990's to about 2002. I still respect Origen, but I agree with the condemnation.

I only asked if you read his works because you made it seem as if he never really made the errors that people say he did.

Well, he didn't make some of them.  This is exactly why I said I think it's time to leave the whole castration thing alone and focus on figuring out, as best we can, what Origen actually taught.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue that he should be made a saint.  However, I don't think the condemnation issued against him in later centuries should be the final word on Origen, considering that the condemnation wasn't actually part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and it blamed him for stuff we no longer think Origen actually believed or taught.

I agree with you about Origen being very smart, and sincere. When I first read what he had to say about a number of passages in Romans chapter 9, it totally blew my mind away. He was a true genius! And I will always have a certain level of love and respect for him because of it.

But in regards to the decrees that were added to the 5th council. Well, alot of Origens works were destroyed, and so we are only working with a portion of his works. I think those back in the day had a better understanding of what he was saying for his works were widespread and he was very influential.  

And so I don't think it's wise for us to assume that they didn't know what they were talking about with the works they destroyed as well as with the implications that his views led to in regards to the Origenists. Also, I was told that the latins doctored up some of his surviving works in their translations to make him sound more orthodox.

Now I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what some are saying:
http://orthodoxchurchhistory.com/uploads/6Origen2006A.mp3 (Origen of Alexandria  (185-254AD) was a zealous and well educated Christian youth who became an instructor of Christian converts during the persecution that killed his father. He was a leading Biblical scholar and Spiritual writer. Unfortunately, while attempting to refute Gnosticsm, his theology was influenced by the Gnostic presupposition that the world was evil.)


But yes, I still admire Origen, and I probably always will. He was a true genius! Someone that lived before his time!







ICXC NIKA

[deusveritasest]

When will Origen be recognized as a Saint?

When Theodoret of Cyrrus is recognized as a Saint: i.e. never.

[deusveritasest]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint.

Though Origen's form of apokatastasis was heretical, not all were.

[deusveritasest]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

Origen's self-castration was condemned long before Justinian was even born.

[deusveritasest]

He accepted the heresy of apokatastasis and so therefore can not become a saint. However, he did say much that is used to represent the antiquity of orthodox theology (both catholic and EO).

It seems rather unfair to condemn Origen, even if he did accept apokatastasis, because during Origen's lifetime, he was never given a chance to either recant or clarify what he believed or taught. His anathema occurred centuries after his death.

One could easily argue that Origen, if told that his ideas were not consistent with the Church, would have happily obeyed any Church council. Origen, after all, always called himself a child of the Church, and never would have consciously held ideas deemed heretical.

Yes, I agree that the later condemnation of his person was unfair.

However, I do think that the condemnation of his teachings is very important. And I think canonization of his person should be withheld, lest further confusion concerning his teachings arise.

It would be best just to have a neutral but respectful position with regards to his person.

[deusveritasest]

I haven't researched it much myself, but I read here that there was a very small but important difference between St Gregory and Origen: that St Gregory expressed a strong hope for apokatastasis, but Origen asserted it with certainty.

That isn't the really significant difference. What is the significant difference is that Origen went way off the deep end in Platonizing Christianity in a way that Saint Gregory did not. The condemnation of Origen's apokatastasis has to be taken in the context of the other anathemas against him at Constantinople II, as they essentially describe the different factors of what was wrong with his form of the doctrine.

[deusveritasest]

It isn't just about apokatastasis.  Gregory of Nyssa did not have bad anthropology--Origen did.  And this was the councils first concern, as we see it in the first of its anathemas.   Origen taught the pre-existence of souls, and worse yet, the men and material flesh only came about, not because of the will of God, but as the result of their sinful desire not to see the face of God.   For Origen the man is not body and soul, but the sole hidden in the "trap" of a body because his love for God grew cold and hid there!   That Origin is a heretic has little to do with the fact of restoration and much to do with the fact that he taught and upheld a completely dangerous view of creation, man and the Incarnation and whole of soteriology.   He taught not only restoration but also that the personhood of each human person will "disappear" and all be absorbed into the Godhead.   This is more Hinduism than it is Christianity.   

LOL. You said it way better than I. 

[PeterTheAleut]

What you're basically asking us to believe is that modern scholars, living many centuries after these events, and for the most part not imbued with an Orthodox mindset, happen to know more about what really happened than the God-inspired Fathers who lived at the time and experienced these events and personalities firsthand.

Your criticisms of "modern scholars" for their alleged lack of an Orthodox mindset are not credible to me.  Perhaps you should join the Orthodox Church yourself.

Hold on there!  Jonathan's status as a Greek Old Calendarist is irrelevant to this discussion (and to the point you're trying to make), thus making your comment (highlighted above) an ad hominem, so let's stop that line of discussion right now before it derails this thread.

[stashko]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

Origen's self-castration was condemned long before Justinian was even born.

If you can Shed some Light ......

If he was Plagued with sexual desires he couldn't control,and did what scripture says or as the lords words that say better to edit a offending member and enter heaven maimed then the whole body thown in hell....so How does a Church council supersede the words of Christ himself......Enquiring mind really would like to know....   Also To Save the rest Of Himself for  Heaven and from Hell by cutting off  the offending member....

[PeterTheAleut]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

Origen's self-castration was condemned long before Justinian was even born.

If you can Shed some Light ......

If he was Plagued with sexual desires he couldn't control,and did what scripture says or as the lords words that say better to edit a offending member and enter heaven maimed then the whole body thown in hell....so How does a Church council supersede the words of Christ himself......

It's called the Church interpreting the words of Christ to make sure they're not taken, in this instance, according to their strictly literal and self-mutilating sense.  Would you agree that Jesus spoke in parables?  Why can He not also use hyperbole?  Obviously He didn't mean to have everything He said taken so literally.

Think about it.  If we were to all follow Christ's statement that we should pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin, we'd all be blind by now, especially us guys.  And I'm sure He didn't imagine us literally walking around with two-by-fours in our eyes--they don't even fit.

[Jonathan Gress]

That link doesn't say anything proving it did!  Even the guy who wrote it is ambivalent on the issue.

Well, it doesn't prove it didn't, and the author clearly leans towards the authenticity of the anathemas. Since you were stating as a matter of fact that the anathemas were not genuine, I was challenging you to show that in fact there is a scholarly consensus against their authenticity. In any case, since the Church has never saw fit to revise her judgment against Origen, the burden of proof is on those who would dispute these anathemas.

Your criticisms of "modern scholars" for their alleged lack of an Orthodox mindset are not credible to me.  Perhaps you should join the Orthodox Church yourself.

Well, perhaps I should have clarified. Much of the modern fashion for disputing the Church's traditional interpretation of history and dogma is based ultimately on the work of liberal Protestant scholars (and more recently also liberal Catholic scholars), who of course do not believe in the authority of Tradition. This trend in scholarship has also influenced many Orthodox writers. These individuals may very well show an Orthodox mentality in other fields, but when it comes to evaluating history they show the influence of these heterodox authors. Bishop Kallistos Ware is a good example of this.

The Church is the Church and didn't make a mistake.  Origen wasn't condemned by the Church.

I'm glad we agree that the Church cannot err. Therefore I hope you have proof that the Church did not condemn Origen, rather than mere speculation.

[Orual]

Origen was excommunicated centuries after his death under pressure from emperor     ::)St. Justinian   I wonder if Origen really made himself a eunich; could be a device to keep his rep negative.

There's no good evidence that he did.  

I don't like the fact that people keep bringing it up as evidence to condemn him.  There's a lot of question as to what he himself actually believed and taught versus what was taught in his name after he died, and people just want to retreat to the "Well, he castrated himself!" in order to maintain the status quo of Origen being condemned, and to avoid having to deal with the theological issues.  

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we have to declare Origen a saint or anything.  But I can't help but find it funny that such an ascetic, asexual man, who devoted his life to studying and teaching theology, would wind up being best known among future theologians for the alleged status of his genitals.    

Have you read his works? I have.

Why yes, yes, I have.  I felt he was mostly a sincere, humble preacher, who may have gone off the deep end once or twice, but very smart, and mostly just handicapped by the fact that he lived and died before a lot of the later theological debates.

I was really into him back in the late 1990's to about 2002. I still respect Origen, but I agree with the condemnation.

I only asked if you read his works because you made it seem as if he never really made the errors that people say he did.

Well, he didn't make some of them.  This is exactly why I said I think it's time to leave the whole castration thing alone and focus on figuring out, as best we can, what Origen actually taught.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue that he should be made a saint.  However, I don't think the condemnation issued against him in later centuries should be the final word on Origen, considering that the condemnation wasn't actually part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and it blamed him for stuff we no longer think Origen actually believed or taught.

I agree with you about Origen being very smart, and sincere. When I first read what he had to say about a number of passages in Romans chapter 9, it totally blew my mind away. He was a true genius! And I will always have a certain level of love and respect for him because of it.

But in regards to the decrees that were added to the 5th council. Well, alot of Origens works were destroyed, and so we are only working with a portion of his works. I think those back in the day had a better understanding of what he was saying for his works were widespread and he was very influential.  

And so I don't think it's wise for us to assume that they didn't know what they were talking about with the works they destroyed as well as with the implications that his views led to in regards to the Origenists. Also, I was told that the latins doctored up some of his surviving works in their translations to make him sound more orthodox.

Do you mean Rufinus?  Well, it's true that Rufinus did a hatchet job on translating Origen in an effort to make him sound better, he says so in his own preface to his translation of OFP, and the Cappadocians did their own share of cherry-picking out of his writings.  That doesn't mean Origen was less orthodox and Rufinus actually made him more palatable.  If you read a version of OFP with the translation of Rufinus along with the assorted Greek fragments, it can be really startling. 

Now I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what some are saying:
http://orthodoxchurchhistory.com/uploads/6Origen2006A.mp3 (Origen of Alexandria  (185-254AD) was a zealous and well educated Christian youth who became an instructor of Christian converts during the persecution that killed his father. He was a leading Biblical scholar and Spiritual writer. Unfortunately, while attempting to refute Gnosticsm, his theology was influenced by the Gnostic presupposition that the world was evil.)

But yes, I still admire Origen, and I probably always will. He was a true genius! Someone that lived before his time!

ICXC NIKA

Well, I'm glad we both like Origen.    If I had a time machine, I'd go back and save his old writings, and then we would know for sure.  Or maybe just sit down and ask him.   

[LBK]

The Church is the Church and didn't make a mistake.  Origen wasn't condemned by the Church.

This should help:

Following the council held at Alexandria in AD 400 to condemn Origenism, Theophilus of Alexandria, in his synodal letter (no. 92) to the bishops of Palestine and Cyprus, stated the following:

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.

• The Son compared with us is truth, but compared with the Father, He is falsehood.
• Christ's kingdom will one day come to an end.
• We ought to pray to the Father alone, not to the Son.
• Our bodies after the resurrection will be corruptible and mortal.
• There is nothing perfect even in heaven. The angels themselves are faulty, and some of them feed on the Jewish sacrifices.
• The stars are conscious of their own movements, and the demons know the future by their courses.
• Magic, if real, is not evil.
• Christ suffered once for men. He will suffer again for the demons.

   
Despite his being denounced during his lifetime, Origenism persisted for several centuries, and Origen and his main adherents were formally anathematised at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553, convened by Byzantine Emperor Justinian the Great. Some of the proceedings of this Council include:

• Convened regarding Monophysitism (Nestorianism) and Origenism.
• Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Eutyches, and Origen defended these issues, which were condemned by Emperor Justinian.
• Repeated condemnations from previous councils of Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches.
• Condemned Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius for teaching the pre-existence of souls, reincarnation, the ultimate salvation of demons, that heavenly bodies possessed souls, and other errors.

[Shanghaiski]

When will Origen be recognized as a Saint?

When Theodoret of Cyrrus is recognized as a Saint: i.e. never.

Actually, the Chalcedonian Orthodox traditionally refer to him as Blessed Theodoret. He was rehabilitated at Chalcedon after anathematizing Nestorius. I know that doesn't mean much to you as a Non-Chalcedonian, but that is how the Eastern Orthodox see him.

[Jetavan]

I would suspect that there's more a chance that Clement of Alexandria would be declared a saint, than that Origen would.

[Shanghaiski]

I would suspect that there's more a chance that Clement of Alexandria would be declared a saint, than that Origen would.

Well, he was considered so by the Orthodox of the pre-schism West. He's still on the Benedictine calendar on Dec. 4, IIRC. He is mislabeled a Gnostic. AFAIK, his writings are perfectly Orthodox.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: St. Origen