St. Origen

[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.

Researching this, I suppose there is question regarding some of his writings, but he was not condemned that I know of. Many early Christian writers of significance held beliefs that were later rejected, but they themselves are still venerated as saints--such as St. Justin Martyr.

[Jetavan]

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.

I thought only the Coptics venerated C. of A.

[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.

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....

Simple. The Church does not interpret it literally.

[deusveritasest]

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.

I'm well aware of that. I've never encountered that being interpreted as an indication of Sainthood, however.

[Jetavan]

Well, at least Origen's father is a saint.

[ialmisry]

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.

Constantinople II took a a second look at him though, and explictiely anathematized much (but not all) of his writings.

[Ortho_cat]

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.

not quite, he denied the full humanity of Christ:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as aftewards some did certainily supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain.2

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

[LizaSymonenko]

What?  A "Saint" said that?!?   

[Heorhij]

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.

not quite, he denied the full humanity of Christ:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as aftewards some did certainily supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain.2

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

I don't think this measures up to denial of Christ's full humanity. St. John of Damascus said pretty much the same in his "Exact Exposition."

"After Christ was risen from the dead He laid aside all His passions, I mean His corruption or hunger or thirst or sleep or weariness or such like. For, although He did taste food after the resurrection(1), yet He did not do so because it was a law of His nature (for He felt no hunger), but in the way of economy, in order that He might convince us of the reality of the resurrection, and that it was one and the same flesh which suffered and rose again(2)."

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactiv.html#BOOK_IV_CHAPTER_I

[Ortho_cat]

The distinction I see here is that St. John specifically mentions Christ after the resurrection, where Clement does not.

[Cephas]

Here is the full statement made by St. Clement:

The Stromata (Book VI): Chapter 9. The Gnostic Free of All Perturbations of the Soul

The Gnostic is such, that he is subject only to the affections that exist for the maintenance of the body, such as hunger, thirst, and the like. But in the case of the Saviour, it were ludicrous [to suppose] that the body, as a body, demanded the necessary aids in order to its duration. For He ate, not for the sake of the body, which was kept together by a holy energy, but in order that it might not enter into the minds of those who were with Him to entertain a different opinion of Him; in like manner as certainly some afterwards supposed that He appeared in a phantasmal shape (δοκήσει). But He was entirely impassible (ἀπαθής); inaccessible to any movement of feeling— either pleasure or pain. While the apostles, having most gnostically mastered, through the Lord's teaching, anger and fear, and lust, were not liable even to such of the movements of feeling, as seem good, courage, zeal, joy, desire, through a steady condition of mind, not changing a whit; but ever continuing unvarying in a state of training after the resurrection of the Lord.

Source

I think St. Clement is also speaking post-resurrection, though not explicitly.

[Heorhij]

The distinction I see here is that St. John specifically mentions Christ after the resurrection, where Clement does not.

Interesting. If he (Clement) means that Christ did not have need in food before His resurrection, then he is certainly not Orthodox.

That thought did not even enter my mind when I read the quote you provided...

[Shanghaiski]

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

And it would still be not in agreement with the teaching of the Church.

[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.

Constantinople II took a a second look at him though, and explictiely anathematized much (but not all) of his writings.

Hardly any of his writings were anathematized, compared to the whole corpus of them, only his anti-Cyrillian writings. The vast majority of his writings are Biblical commentaries which are perfectly sound.

[Shanghaiski]

The distinction I see here is that St. John specifically mentions Christ after the resurrection, where Clement does not.

Interesting. If he (Clement) means that Christ did not have need in food before His resurrection, then he is certainly not Orthodox.

That thought did not even enter my mind when I read the quote you provided...

This, to me, goes along with another thread's topic. He was not constrained by hunger like he didn't have a choice. He chose to be hungry for our salvation.

[jckstraw72]

even if talking pre-resurrection it doesnt seem too bad to me -- sounds like something St. Maximus might say. Christ took on unfallen nature and deified it, but He also voluntarily assumed the blameless passions although they do not truly belong to His deified humanity.

[ialmisry]

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.

not quite, he denied the full humanity of Christ:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as aftewards some did certainily supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain.2

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

1) Demonstrating the dangers of thelogy 2) Demonstrating the need for Antioch to balance Alexandria.

[Volnutt]

Oh wow. I was sure Clement of Alexandria was an Orthodox saint.

However, I don't see that quip about Christ not needing to eat as being a real denial of His humanity, just more Platonic bull crap no worse than those Fathers who think He had no emotions or was able to turn them off an on like a faucet or whatever.

[ialmisry]

Oh wow. I was sure Clement of Alexandria was an Orthodox saint.

However, I don't see that quip about Christ not needing to eat as being a real denial of His humanity, just more Platonic bull crap no worse than those Fathers who think He had no emotions or was able to turn them off an on like a faucet or whatever.

St. Clement is still a saint.  He just erred.  He was pioneer in putting Christianity into formal theology for apologetic and polemical purposes, so he deserves some slack for attempting something for the first time (and needed, given the attacks of the philosophical schools: so he tried to fight fire with fire).

[Volnutt]

Oh wow. I was sure Clement of Alexandria was an Orthodox saint.

However, I don't see that quip about Christ not needing to eat as being a real denial of His humanity, just more Platonic bull crap no worse than those Fathers who think He had no emotions or was able to turn them off an on like a faucet or whatever.

St. Clement is still a saint.  He just erred.  He was pioneer in putting Christianity into formal theology for apologetic and polemical purposes, so he deserves some slack for attempting something for the first time (and needed, given the attacks of the philosophical schools: so he tried to fight fire with fire).

True. St. Justin Martyr was in a similar milieu though even more primitive.

[scamandrius]

A little late to the conversation, but I'm sure that the Episcopalians are in the process of trying to make Origen a Church Father and saint, although their attempt with Pelagius did fail (surprisingly).

[Jason.Wike]

Every Catholic I ask says he already is one, even the monks - some of the ones I've asked are probably priests. This really perplexes me, have they just all collectively forgotten he was excommunicated or something?

[Shanghaiski]

Every Catholic I ask says he already is one, even the monks - some of the ones I've asked are probably priests. This really perplexes me, have they just all collectively forgotten he was excommunicated or something?

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not all that popular with Rome. Poor Pope Vigilius needed some "persuasion" to accept it.

[Jetavan]

Every Catholic I ask says he already is one, even the monks....

Origen or Clement of Alexandria?

[jnorm888]

although their attempt with Pelagius did fail (surprisingly).

They will try again, and again, and again, till they get their way.

[jnorm888]

Oh wow. I was sure Clement of Alexandria was an Orthodox saint.

However, I don't see that quip about Christ not needing to eat as being a real denial of His humanity, just more Platonic bull crap no worse than those Fathers who think He had no emotions or was able to turn them off an on like a faucet or whatever.

St. Clement is still a saint.  He just erred.  He was pioneer in putting Christianity into formal theology for apologetic and polemical purposes, so he deserves some slack for attempting something for the first time (and needed, given the attacks of the philosophical schools: so he tried to fight fire with fire).

Is he listed on the Byzantine Calender as a Saint? I was told he wasn't a Saint.

[jckstraw72]

AFAIK he doesnt have a date on the calendar, but i have seen him referred to as Saint, and as just Clement, both in Orthodox sources.

[zekarja]

AFAIK he doesnt have a date on the calendar, but i have seen him referred to as Saint, and as just Clement, both in Orthodox sources.

For what it's worth Hieromonk Seraphim Rose doesn't call Clement of Alexandria a saint in Appendix III (Fathers and Teachers of the Church and Church Writers Mentioned in the Text of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology) of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky's book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. He does, however, list Theodoret of Cyrus as Blessed Theodoret.

[yeshuaisiam]

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.

But didn't Tertullian write that St. Paul was castrated?  This wasn't speaking in the celibate way either...  Of course I have no idea if he meant he did it to himself or if he actually knew for sure...

Origen believed that St. Matthew was a Eunuch (by choice), but doesn't specifically say he did the "cringing deed" either.

Now, I don't know why but whenever this subject is discussed, it just makes me feel... well.... not good, and I want to hide at the same time defend with my life... LOL   I struggle on this subject and its hard to relate to it...

I'm with your opinion though because I just can't imagine it any other way.

[Tags:]

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