Author Topic: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake  (Read 4387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,873
  • St. John of Kronstadt, pray for me!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #90 on: December 29, 2016, 06:55:55 PM »
I rest my case.

Once you're dead, you can't repent.
Interesting. Doesn't the Orthodox pray for the departed to God for the forgiveness of sins?

Yes, we do. But we are still living.
But aren't Christians those who have died to sin but alive in Christ? Isn't that the point of baptism? Sin no longer is our master because we become a new person in Christ. Where is the sting of death (sin) if you are in Christ?

LBK I am not attempting to troll you and my questions are not guided by any false pretenses, I am genuinely curious. Are Christians not already dead? I am trying to reconcile your distinction between living/dead with what I read in the Scriptures.
“The soul that loves God has its rest in God and in God alone. In all the paths that men walk in in the world, they do not attain peace until they draw nigh to hope in God.”

— St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 56, 89

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #91 on: December 29, 2016, 07:17:01 PM »
But did it really? It would be strange for the Church to be perfectly fine with Origen, only to wake up one day in 553 and go "Oh no, I've made a terrible mistake".

Perhaps the name of this thread is adding a bit of confusion to this thread.  I don't think "perfectly fine" necessarily means "solidly orthodox in all his teachings/writings".  A few of the church fathers have taught something here and there which doesn't exactly square with the received teaching of the Church, and we simply note that and move on.  We don't typically view that as a disqualification, let alone a reason to hurl out conciliar anathemas. 

Whether or not someone believes that Origen is a saint or an impeccable theologian isn't really interesting to me in the context of this thread.  What does interest me is the idea that someone can die today in full communion and peace with the Church, and centuries later can be anathematised.  If someone can't sin or repent after death, how do they get anathematised after they died in good faith?   

Wouldn't this argument also apply with equal measure to Theodore of Mopsuestia?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #92 on: December 29, 2016, 07:19:26 PM »
I myself would not mind a reversal of these anathemas; I think doctrinal error can be rectified via corrective statements.  In the case of Origen, this simply would mean stating that he was wrong on those points relating to eschatology, and completely wrong on the alleged transmigration of souls.

Btw Mor, on the 300 years bit, St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome did criticize Origen with some vigour in the fourth century, in opposition to Lucifer of Cagliari and other pro-Origenists.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #93 on: December 30, 2016, 07:05:22 AM »
I Believe it was actually Justinian who himself condemned Origen because he wanted power and to Control the masses. Promoting eternal punishment and condemning apokatastasis is a good way to control and convert People by motives of fear and force. I think Justinian, even if eternal punishment as eternal torment is true, wanted to promote this as a way to power. He didn't want the kingdom of God like Origen did. He wanted the kingdom of Caesar dressed up as the kingdom of God. Justinian might have thought otherwise, But really all be wanted was power. For this, condemning Origen and his teachings was thought by him to be necessary.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,728
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #94 on: December 30, 2016, 02:38:52 PM »
But did it really? It would be strange for the Church to be perfectly fine with Origen, only to wake up one day in 553 and go "Oh no, I've made a terrible mistake".

Perhaps the name of this thread is adding a bit of confusion to this thread.  I don't think "perfectly fine" necessarily means "solidly orthodox in all his teachings/writings".  A few of the church fathers have taught something here and there which doesn't exactly square with the received teaching of the Church, and we simply note that and move on.  We don't typically view that as a disqualification, let alone a reason to hurl out conciliar anathemas. 

Whether or not someone believes that Origen is a saint or an impeccable theologian isn't really interesting to me in the context of this thread.  What does interest me is the idea that someone can die today in full communion and peace with the Church, and centuries later can be anathematised.  If someone can't sin or repent after death, how do they get anathematised after they died in good faith?   

Wouldn't this argument also apply with equal measure to Theodore of Mopsuestia?

Why stop there? Fr Georges Florovsky remarks that St Hilary of Poitiers taught an early form of apthartodocetism... should we dig him up for anathema now? 
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,728
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #95 on: December 30, 2016, 02:52:23 PM »
At the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, many of the council fathers felt that the condemnation of the Letter of Ibas put them in contradiction to Chalcedon. Their solution was to claim that the declaration of Ibas' letter to be orthodox was an interpolation in the minutes. That's highly unlikely- actually, there's stronger evidence that the condemnation of Origen at the fifth council was an interpolation. At Chalcedon itself there was a bit of cherry-picking- Saint Cyril's agreement with John of Antioch was given emphasis but his 12 anathemas were promoted only implicitly.
What are the evidence that it was an interpolation?

Not particularly strong- my point only is that it is stronger than the nonexistent evidence that the approval of Ibas' letter was an interpolation. The council fathers in 553 decided to pretend that the approval of Ibas' letter was interpolated rather than face the uncomfortable fact that they were contradicting part of the council of Chalcedon. Nowadays the whole issue surrounding Ibas at Chalcedon seems relatively inconsequential to us but it was not seen that way by both pro- and anti- Chalcedonians at the time.

The argument that Origen's condemnation was interpolated points to the fact that it appears at the end of a list which is otherwise in historical order, and that Origen and Origenism were not the subjects of any of the other anathemas or the whole reason the council was convened. It's imaginable that even Justinian himself might have had the name inserted into the records after the fact. But no, I wouldn't say that such a case can be proven.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline gavaisky

  • Level 10 cleric
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #96 on: December 30, 2016, 03:57:08 PM »
I Believe it was actually Justinian who himself condemned Origen because he wanted power and to Control the masses. Promoting eternal punishment and condemning apokatastasis is a good way to control and convert People by motives of fear and force. I think Justinian, even if eternal punishment as eternal torment is true, wanted to promote this as a way to power. He didn't want the kingdom of God like Origen did. He wanted the kingdom of Caesar dressed up as the kingdom of God. Justinian might have thought otherwise, But really all be wanted was power. For this, condemning Origen and his teachings was thought by him to be necessary.

You may disagree with St. Justinian, but to accuse him of base motives is going a little too far in my opinion. I think we should stick to the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Let the mouth too fast from disgraceful speeches and railing. For what does it profit if we abstain from birds and fishes, and yet bite and devour our brethren? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother, and bites the body of his neighbor.
—St. John Chrysostom

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #97 on: December 30, 2016, 06:06:12 PM »
I Believe it was actually Justinian who himself condemned Origen because he wanted power and to Control the masses. Promoting eternal punishment and condemning apokatastasis is a good way to control and convert People by motives of fear and force. I think Justinian, even if eternal punishment as eternal torment is true, wanted to promote this as a way to power. He didn't want the kingdom of God like Origen did. He wanted the kingdom of Caesar dressed up as the kingdom of God. Justinian might have thought otherwise, But really all be wanted was power. For this, condemning Origen and his teachings was thought by him to be necessary.

You may disagree with St. Justinian, but to accuse him of base motives is going a little too far in my opinion. I think we should stick to the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.

I understand and agree to a certain extent. But on the other hand; if Justinian condemned one of the greatest Christian teachers in history, why can't I question the life or more specifically a decision made by a mass murderer? I rather do that than condemning Origen at least
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2016, 10:54:25 AM »
I rest my case.

Once you're dead, you can't repent.

But apparently you can still become a heretic.

The Church has decided, and long ago. We should not presume we know better.

"The Church" accepted for something like three hundred years that he died in peace and in full communion with "the Church" after enduring sufferings for the sake of Christ, until "the Church" decided he was actually an anathematised heretic.  So how much time has to pass before "the Church's" made-up mind is final and irrevocable?   

Theodore and Nestorius were also condemned after there deaths at the same council.  Theodore was also a tutor and friend to many.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,430
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2016, 11:00:42 AM »
Depends on how well the church history is interpreted and translated down through the centuries.

 ~ What people have believed down through the centuries. ~
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 11:02:34 AM by WPM »
Learn meditation.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,430
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #100 on: December 31, 2016, 11:24:17 AM »
I can't understand, after having read about Origen and after having read in his great work "On first principles", how Origen was and is not canonized as a saint. How the church has canonized the emperor Justinian but not Origen is beyond my comprehension. I even dare to say, that out of all church fathers(yes Origen was most certainly a church father, as we have had no one who has interpreted and taught us how to interpret scripture in a better way, except maybe Gregory of Nyssa) he is among the most saintly. No matter his views which were deemed heretical, I dare to call Saint Augustine just as heretical as Origen. I can't for my life understand how we can't embrace the great defender of the church Origen more, as he is the most earnest and bright of the church fathers I have read, and also, we owe him a great debt when it comes to his ability to interpret scripture allegorically. Thoughts about this?

There aren't very many mistakes allowed to be made.
Learn meditation.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #101 on: December 31, 2016, 12:28:13 PM »
I can't understand, after having read about Origen and after having read in his great work "On first principles", how Origen was and is not canonized as a saint. How the church has canonized the emperor Justinian but not Origen is beyond my comprehension. I even dare to say, that out of all church fathers(yes Origen was most certainly a church father, as we have had no one who has interpreted and taught us how to interpret scripture in a better way, except maybe Gregory of Nyssa) he is among the most saintly. No matter his views which were deemed heretical, I dare to call Saint Augustine just as heretical as Origen. I can't for my life understand how we can't embrace the great defender of the church Origen more, as he is the most earnest and bright of the church fathers I have read, and also, we owe him a great debt when it comes to his ability to interpret scripture allegorically. Thoughts about this?

There aren't very many mistakes allowed to be made.
What do you mean?
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #102 on: December 31, 2016, 12:31:50 PM »
Is there any evidence that Origen was ever actually venerated?

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,671
  • Excelsior
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #103 on: December 31, 2016, 01:35:47 PM »
I can't understand, after having read about Origen and after having read in his great work "On first principles", how Origen was and is not canonized as a saint. How the church has canonized the emperor Justinian but not Origen is beyond my comprehension. I even dare to say, that out of all church fathers(yes Origen was most certainly a church father, as we have had no one who has interpreted and taught us how to interpret scripture in a better way, except maybe Gregory of Nyssa) he is among the most saintly. No matter his views which were deemed heretical, I dare to call Saint Augustine just as heretical as Origen. I can't for my life understand how we can't embrace the great defender of the church Origen more, as he is the most earnest and bright of the church fathers I have read, and also, we owe him a great debt when it comes to his ability to interpret scripture allegorically. Thoughts about this?

There aren't very many mistakes allowed to be made.
What do you mean?

He's known for writing non sequitur posts. Don't bother with what he says.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,559
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #104 on: December 31, 2016, 02:35:30 PM »
Is there any evidence that Origen was ever actually venerated?

Yes.  St. Dionysius the Great, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Athanasius, all defended and venerated him, just to name a few famous ones.

But I do want to add this.  I was trying to read if there was anything against Orthodoxy Origen was attacked for while he was alive, even implicatively, and I get ambiguous answers from scholarship.  Some claim that his problems with doctrine were brought up during his time, and some would say posthumously.  Some would say if it was brought up during his time, it was by those who claim to follow him, but he would refute such notions.  Even posthumously when he was accused of certain doctrines, he was defended on all points except apokatastasis which his ardent supporters admit he tended to think in that manner.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that the Church fathers allowed a posthumous condemnation because of the fact that he was highly venerated and people couldn't discern for themselves which of his writings would be good or not good.  The same with Diodore and Theodore (Nestorius was condemned fully and clearly while he was alive), highly venerated men who were nonetheless leading others to a Nestorian Christology.  It has been argued by some scholars that St. Gregory the Theologian did in fact attack Diodore's doctrines within his writings against Apollinarius, though not by name because he had a sense of infallible respect among the world's bishops at his time.  But Diodore knowing he was attacked kept his distance from St. Gregory afterwards.

In any sense, as is mentioned, if a person can be condemned whether alive or posthumously, it should be investigated to see if he can be rehabilitated, even posthumously.  Past condemnations should not be a hindrance to a renewed investigation.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,728
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2016, 03:15:36 PM »
I know of at least one Saint who was canonized, de-canonized, and then re-canonized centuries later by the Russian church (Anna of Kashin).
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2016, 04:09:24 PM »
Is there any evidence that Origen was ever actually venerated?

Yes.  St. Dionysius the Great, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Athanasius, all defended and venerated him, just to name a few famous ones.

But I do want to add this.  I was trying to read if there was anything against Orthodoxy Origen was attacked for while he was alive, even implicatively, and I get ambiguous answers from scholarship.  Some claim that his problems with doctrine were brought up during his time, and some would say posthumously.  Some would say if it was brought up during his time, it was by those who claim to follow him, but he would refute such notions.  Even posthumously when he was accused of certain doctrines, he was defended on all points except apokatastasis which his ardent supporters admit he tended to think in that manner.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that the Church fathers allowed a posthumous condemnation because of the fact that he was highly venerated and people couldn't discern for themselves which of his writings would be good or not good.  The same with Diodore and Theodore (Nestorius was condemned fully and clearly while he was alive), highly venerated men who were nonetheless leading others to a Nestorian Christology.  It has been argued by some scholars that St. Gregory the Theologian did in fact attack Diodore's doctrines within his writings against Apollinarius, though not by name because he had a sense of infallible respect among the world's bishops at his time.  But Diodore knowing he was attacked kept his distance from St. Gregory afterwards.

In any sense, as is mentioned, if a person can be condemned whether alive or posthumously, it should be investigated to see if he can be rehabilitated, even posthumously.  Past condemnations should not be a hindrance to a renewed investigation.

1)  I understand he was defended by the great saints, and they are all indebted to him, as is the Church.  But was he venerated as a saint like other saints were of the period?  That's what I'm asking.  That may be an impossible question to answer, just curious.  Theodore to an extant may have been, the Syriacs acknowledge him as a saint...and there is a debate that can be witnessed for the next few centuries.  Does Origen have a documented debate over the next two or three centuries? 

To maybe help illustrate:  I'm wondering if an analogy of who Origen and Theodore are in relation to the Church of their time.  Perhaps we could bring up examples of Fr. Schmemann or a Fr. Bulgakov.  In the former case a great man, and uncontroversially a Christian, who had some of his own teachings that many / most follow.  In the later case, a great man, died in standing with the Church, and definitely had some fringe teachings with the potential to lead people off track; neither I think are venerated in a technical way, but both are considered great men and teachers of the Church.  I would be not entirely surprised if I were to see an anethma hit Fr. Bulgakov (though I'd rather it not go directly againt the man himself) and a bit shocked were I to see one hit Fr. Schmemann. In either case, Fr. Schmeann and Fr. Bulgakov aren't saints like St. Ignatius Brianchaninov.  If Origen wasn't a saint, perhaps he was a Fr. Bulgakov kind of figure? I still think Origen was more in line with the Orthodoxy of his day, and was regarded as orthodox for some time, but maybe that helps illustrate a point.

2) Origen was attacked in his own time for not being Orthodox in his own time.....but so was every great man who wrote, lead, or formed an opinion.  This is just an unfortunate fact of success.  I think considering his time and place, he was Orthodox by most standards we can apply.  I also think he was established as a "great Christian theologian" rather uncontroversailly for some time.  Origen himself stated that people always misrpreasented his positions, or would sign works to him that were not his own.  Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and most others had similar problems, and many enemies in their own time.  Their is nothing indicating Origen is a unique case in this.  What came after seems to be the problem.


3)  I do agree that the names of Origen and Theodore (not too sure about Diodore's life) are probably near the top on a short list of candidates that it would be nice to have unanathemitized...but I don't know much about precedence, procedure, or methods on that.  Maybe that's one of the consequences of being associated too much with teaching, anathemas are going to hit that person rather than one of us, or a more "worldly" / less academic or monastic saint.  The standards may be very high.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 04:15:52 PM by William T »

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,430
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #107 on: December 31, 2016, 04:25:47 PM »
I can't understand, after having read about Origen and after having read in his great work "On first principles", how Origen was and is not canonized as a saint. How the church has canonized the emperor Justinian but not Origen is beyond my comprehension. I even dare to say, that out of all church fathers(yes Origen was most certainly a church father, as we have had no one who has interpreted and taught us how to interpret scripture in a better way, except maybe Gregory of Nyssa) he is among the most saintly. No matter his views which were deemed heretical, I dare to call Saint Augustine just as heretical as Origen. I can't for my life understand how we can't embrace the great defender of the church Origen more, as he is the most earnest and bright of the church fathers I have read, and also, we owe him a great debt when it comes to his ability to interpret scripture allegorically. Thoughts about this?

There aren't very many mistakes allowed to be made.
What do you mean?

He's known for writing non sequitur posts. Don't bother with what he says.

The problem is probably ignoring what other posters say and upholding your own opinions.
Learn meditation.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,430
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #108 on: December 31, 2016, 04:32:19 PM »
I rest my case.

Once you're dead, you can't repent.
Interesting. Doesn't the Orthodox pray for the departed to God for the forgiveness of sins?

Yes there is.    . . . The Church does have a prayer tradition for the departed.
Learn meditation.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,559
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #109 on: December 31, 2016, 05:28:07 PM »
Is there any evidence that Origen was ever actually venerated?

Yes.  St. Dionysius the Great, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, the Cappadocian fathers, St. Athanasius, all defended and venerated him, just to name a few famous ones.

But I do want to add this.  I was trying to read if there was anything against Orthodoxy Origen was attacked for while he was alive, even implicatively, and I get ambiguous answers from scholarship.  Some claim that his problems with doctrine were brought up during his time, and some would say posthumously.  Some would say if it was brought up during his time, it was by those who claim to follow him, but he would refute such notions.  Even posthumously when he was accused of certain doctrines, he was defended on all points except apokatastasis which his ardent supporters admit he tended to think in that manner.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that the Church fathers allowed a posthumous condemnation because of the fact that he was highly venerated and people couldn't discern for themselves which of his writings would be good or not good.  The same with Diodore and Theodore (Nestorius was condemned fully and clearly while he was alive), highly venerated men who were nonetheless leading others to a Nestorian Christology.  It has been argued by some scholars that St. Gregory the Theologian did in fact attack Diodore's doctrines within his writings against Apollinarius, though not by name because he had a sense of infallible respect among the world's bishops at his time.  But Diodore knowing he was attacked kept his distance from St. Gregory afterwards.

In any sense, as is mentioned, if a person can be condemned whether alive or posthumously, it should be investigated to see if he can be rehabilitated, even posthumously.  Past condemnations should not be a hindrance to a renewed investigation.

1)  I understand he was defended by the great saints, and they are all indebted to him, as is the Church.  But was he venerated as a saint like other saints were of the period?  That's what I'm asking.  That may be an impossible question to answer, just curious.  Theodore to an extant may have been, the Syriacs acknowledge him as a saint...and there is a debate that can be witnessed for the next few centuries.  Does Origen have a documented debate over the next two or three centuries? 

To maybe help illustrate:  I'm wondering if an analogy of who Origen and Theodore are in relation to the Church of their time.  Perhaps we could bring up examples of Fr. Schmemann or a Fr. Bulgakov.  In the former case a great man, and uncontroversially a Christian, who had some of his own teachings that many / most follow.  In the later case, a great man, died in standing with the Church, and definitely had some fringe teachings with the potential to lead people off track; neither I think are venerated in a technical way, but both are considered great men and teachers of the Church.  I would be not entirely surprised if I were to see an anethma hit Fr. Bulgakov (though I'd rather it not go directly againt the man himself) and a bit shocked were I to see one hit Fr. Schmemann. In either case, Fr. Schmeann and Fr. Bulgakov aren't saints like St. Ignatius Brianchaninov.  If Origen wasn't a saint, perhaps he was a Fr. Bulgakov kind of figure? I still think Origen was more in line with the Orthodoxy of his day, and was regarded as orthodox for some time, but maybe that helps illustrate a point.

2) Origen was attacked in his own time for not being Orthodox in his own time.....but so was every great man who wrote, lead, or formed an opinion.  This is just an unfortunate fact of success.  I think considering his time and place, he was Orthodox by most standards we can apply.  I also think he was established as a "great Christian theologian" rather uncontroversailly for some time.  Origen himself stated that people always misrpreasented his positions, or would sign works to him that were not his own.  Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and most others had similar problems, and many enemies in their own time.  Their is nothing indicating Origen is a unique case in this.  What came after seems to be the problem.


3)  I do agree that the names of Origen and Theodore (not too sure about Diodore's life) are probably near the top on a short list of candidates that it would be nice to have unanathemitized...but I don't know much about precedence, procedure, or methods on that.  Maybe that's one of the consequences of being associated too much with teaching, anathemas are going to hit that person rather than one of us, or a more "worldly" / less academic or monastic saint.  The standards may be very high.

I don't think we can find in the ancient Church of the first four centuries a list of recorded saints that we have today.  We can only imply that those who they respected greatly were also venerated.  Also, it has been said that Origen was buried behind the altar of a cathedral in Tyre.  That means that there is an implied veneration of someone who is considered a martyr, since this was the tradition of burying a martyr in or behind an altar, if I'm not mistaken.

Also, after reading this:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0604.htm

That has to be an example of veneration.  Especially the last paragraph reads like we would chant for any other saint.  After a long list of praises of worthiness of the departed soul, we ask that departed soul to pray for us before our Lord Jesus Christ that He may strengthen us.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,430
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #110 on: December 31, 2016, 07:39:35 PM »
Saint Vladimir founder of the Theology Seminary? . . .
Learn meditation.

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,111
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #111 on: December 31, 2016, 09:58:42 PM »
I can't understand, after having read about Origen and after having read in his great work "On first principles", how Origen was and is not canonized as a saint. How the church has canonized the emperor Justinian but not Origen is beyond my comprehension. I even dare to say, that out of all church fathers(yes Origen was most certainly a church father, as we have had no one who has interpreted and taught us how to interpret scripture in a better way, except maybe Gregory of Nyssa) he is among the most saintly. No matter his views which were deemed heretical, I dare to call Saint Augustine just as heretical as Origen. I can't for my life understand how we can't embrace the great defender of the church Origen more, as he is the most earnest and bright of the church fathers I have read, and also, we owe him a great debt when it comes to his ability to interpret scripture allegorically. Thoughts about this?

There aren't very many mistakes allowed to be made.
What do you mean?

He's known for writing non sequitur posts. Don't bother with what he says.

The problem is probably ignoring what other posters say and upholding your own opinions.
.    It is always good to be vague with alleged profundity
Antiochian OC N.A.

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,111
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #112 on: December 31, 2016, 10:14:10 PM »
I guess those of us who personally admire Origen will never know unless we get to heaven. In this world of tribulation, Justinian is a saint.
Antiochian OC N.A.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #113 on: January 01, 2017, 07:02:34 AM »
I have actually heard and read somewhere that the condemnation of Origen didn't actually come from the original Council meeting but was as I said, was penned down by Justinian. Apokatastasis is by the way in it self not heretical. It is heretical to say that all WILL be saved. But not to say like Origen DID say: All might be saved. That all might be saved has been Stated by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Pseudo-Dionysos, Julian of Norwich, and many many others.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 07:17:17 AM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline mcarmichael

  • Novice
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,434
  • Actual jerk
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2017, 05:16:17 PM »
How was this received by the Church? For example, was it controversial? How is it codified in the Liturgy, etcetera?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 05:19:51 PM by mcarmichael »
"Now, don't allow yourself to be fatigued beyond your powers; there's a amiable bein'.
Consider what you owe to society, and don't let yourself be injured by too much work.
For the sake o' your feller-creeturs, keep yourself as quiet as you can; only think what a loss you would be!"
- The very memorable words of Samuel Veller

"Mouth make trouble, mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

"Physician, heal thyself." - Ancient proverb

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,187
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #115 on: January 03, 2017, 09:12:12 PM »
How was this received by the Church? For example, was it controversial? How is it codified in the Liturgy, etcetera?
You can read anathemas against doctrines attributed to him here: http://www.comparativereligion.com/anathemas.html
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Cognomen

  • Ungrateful Biped
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,131
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Wanderer, but Antioch and All the East
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #116 on: January 03, 2017, 11:01:43 PM »
Also, as Fr Aidan Kimel says, the fact that Justinian is a Saint of the church proves that apokastasis is true.

I feel that Fr. Aidan's dedication to the doctrine of universal salvation makes him a less than objective authority on the subject of Origen and the debated orthodoxy of his teachings.

On the broader topic, I am unqualified to hold a position, but it seems a tad presumptive for the OP to pronounce the mistake of omitting Origen from the acknowledged saints. It's clearly an unsettling subject though. And while I acknowledge Origen's contributions and hope that he was not unjustly anathematized, I would also hope that members of the Church would defer to Her decision (if one was indeed made), rather than their personal affinities and devotions.
If anything I have posted has been illuminating, please remember that I merely reflect the light of others...but also it's me.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,781
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #117 on: January 04, 2017, 12:41:21 AM »
I have actually heard and read somewhere that the condemnation of Origen didn't actually come from the original Council meeting but was as I said, was penned down by Justinian. Apokatastasis is by the way in it self not heretical. It is heretical to say that all WILL be saved. But not to say like Origen DID say: All might be saved. That all might be saved has been Stated by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Pseudo-Dionysos, Julian of Norwich, and many many others.
One of Origen's problematic statements was the idea that apokatastasis (even if not a certainty for all) involves a return to our original condition as bodiless souls. Other versions of apokatastasis that involve, say, the ever-deepening process of theosis as a body-mind unity (with theosis not being our original condition), are perfectly orthodox; in fact, these other versions of apokatastasis should not be called "apokatastasis" because that word refers to a restoration to an original condition.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 12:45:00 AM by Jetavan »
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Rohzek

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 924
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2017, 10:36:16 AM »
I have actually heard and read somewhere that the condemnation of Origen didn't actually come from the original Council meeting but was as I said, was penned down by Justinian. Apokatastasis is by the way in it self not heretical. It is heretical to say that all WILL be saved. But not to say like Origen DID say: All might be saved. That all might be saved has been Stated by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Pseudo-Dionysos, Julian of Norwich, and many many others.

Actually, as I understand it, his version was condemned for reasons regarding its tie-in into the pre-existence of souls. So I don't see anything wrong with believing that all will be saved. I personally hold that belief, although I most certainly think Hell exists.
I no longer forum here.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,728
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2017, 11:21:30 AM »
Also, as Fr Aidan Kimel says, the fact that Justinian is a Saint of the church proves that apokastasis is true.

I feel that Fr. Aidan's dedication to the doctrine of universal salvation makes him a less than objective authority on the subject of Origen and the debated orthodoxy of his teachings.

Sure, Fr. Aidan would probably be the first to say that he's biased. On Justinian though it's hard to deny he has a point. Justinian went to his grave promoting the heresy of aphthartodocetism and even exiled two sainted patriarchs (Sts Eutychius of Constantionople and Anastasius of Antioch) for opposing him on this. Yet he is a saint, and Origen is not?

Quote
On the broader topic, I am unqualified to hold a position, but it seems a tad presumptive for the OP to pronounce the mistake of omitting Origen from the acknowledged saints. It's clearly an unsettling subject though. And while I acknowledge Origen's contributions and hope that he was not unjustly anathematized, I would also hope that members of the Church would defer to Her decision (if one was indeed made), rather than their personal affinities and devotions.

I guess a couple of broad questions here need to be fleshed out. Does every pronouncement by a recognized ecumenical council possess unquestionable authority for us? Obviously we do not invest such gatherings with infallibility before they occur, so why should we do so afterwards?  Is it possible to reject a theological opinion as heretical, while recognizing that someone may have been unjustly associated with it and condemned for it?
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2017, 11:55:30 AM »
I have actually heard and read somewhere that the condemnation of Origen didn't actually come from the original Council meeting but was as I said, was penned down by Justinian. Apokatastasis is by the way in it self not heretical. It is heretical to say that all WILL be saved. But not to say like Origen DID say: All might be saved. That all might be saved has been Stated by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Pseudo-Dionysos, Julian of Norwich, and many many others.

Actually, as I understand it, his version was condemned for reasons regarding its tie-in into the pre-existence of souls. So I don't see anything wrong with believing that all will be saved. I personally hold that belief, although I most certainly think Hell exists.

I see. Well I agree with you and must say my belief and Hope is the same.But I also find it absurd if a Christian does not Hope for the salvation of all.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 11:57:43 AM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2017, 12:33:06 PM »
Also, as Fr Aidan Kimel says, the fact that Justinian is a Saint of the church proves that apokastasis is true.

I feel that Fr. Aidan's dedication to the doctrine of universal salvation makes him a less than objective authority on the subject of Origen and the debated orthodoxy of his teachings.

Sure, Fr. Aidan would probably be the first to say that he's biased. On Justinian though it's hard to deny he has a point. Justinian went to his grave promoting the heresy of aphthartodocetism and even exiled two sainted patriarchs (Sts Eutychius of Constantionople and Anastasius of Antioch) for opposing him on this. Yet he is a saint, and Origen is not?

Quote
On the broader topic, I am unqualified to hold a position, but it seems a tad presumptive for the OP to pronounce the mistake of omitting Origen from the acknowledged saints. It's clearly an unsettling subject though. And while I acknowledge Origen's contributions and hope that he was not unjustly anathematized, I would also hope that members of the Church would defer to Her decision (if one was indeed made), rather than their personal affinities and devotions.

I guess a couple of broad questions here need to be fleshed out. Does every pronouncement by a recognized ecumenical council possess unquestionable authority for us? Obviously we do not invest such gatherings with infallibility before they occur, so why should we do so afterwards?  Is it possible to reject a theological opinion as heretical, while recognizing that someone may have been unjustly associated with it and condemned for it?

It's fine to point out that most saints made theological errors. and all had certain sins.  It's not ok to play a virtue comparison game of "why him and not me".  That's not a good line of questioning and it's poor methodology.

Men like Justinian and Constantine have had as good a reputation as can be reasonably expected from most great leaders; including in the Muslim and Persian worlds.  That they don't align with a small group of more modern (and usually western) historians with different temperaments, and perhaps undue activism, is of little concern.  But that's not really a point to argue, as this thread isn't about them.

But if you are admitting there is an activist element in all this; nothing can stop those methods.  I could doubt, relitivize, trivialize, and redefine a commandment or Gospel if I had an agenda.  That's one reason  why we usually put checks on our selves in.methodology in more humanistic fields...one of those checks should be not to ask unanswerable questions like "why him and not him".

If I wanted to level a critique against Cyrus, Ghandi, Sitting Bull, King David , Abraham Lincoln or whomever to promote an agenda I could, especially if I use a methodology based in suspicion and comparison as a base..it becomes a bigger problem when comparing a leader to an ascetic intellectual.  David is not Nathan.  Why David and not Balaam or Saul?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 12:53:21 PM by William T »

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,728
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2017, 01:23:23 PM »
It's fine to point out that most saints made theological errors. and all had certain sins.  It's not ok to play a virtue comparison game of "why him and not me".  That's not a good line of questioning and it's poor methodology.

Here I think you are overgeneralizing a pretty specific problem, relating to two specific men, Origen and the man who secured his condemnation, Justinian. Origen, whatever theological problems he had, has an incalculable influence on orthodox Christianity- exegetically, theologically, spiritually. Without Origen, the profound and penetrating allegorical reading of scripture might be lost to us. We would not have the Cappadocian fathers as we know them, no Dionysian writings, no Saint Maximus the Confessor. Most of the five-volume Philokalia- and Orthodox spirituality in general- could be considered an elaboration of Origen's spirituality via his disciple Evagrius.

A few centuries after his death he is condemned at an ecumenical council. What gives Justinian, or anyone, the right to do such a thing? Here a question of authority comes up. The Church has the authority to do this, we are told. It has been decided and who are you to question it? Too often in these discussions, we meet with this attitude that feigns childlike faith and obedience but is really the self-satisfied air of a grey bureaucrat who abides by all the regulations.

The question of the theological instability of Justinian is apropos as it speaks to the general instability of the time. Yes, through the vicissitudes of history, the Church miraculously preserves the right faith. But in doing so and in expressing that faith, are Her bishops somehow utterly immune to sprinkling chaff into the wheat of authoritative Orthodox pronouncements, chaff colored by political squabbles and historical misunderstandings? We reject the idea that a single bishop can have a charism of infallibility, so why do we tacitly confer such a charism on bishops assembled together? Conciliarity should not mean "hive-pope", especially when a council is so thoroughly dominated by a single imposing personality, who is, moreover, a secular ruler and not a bishop. Accounts of the 2nd council of Constantinople give the impression of an orchestrated, ritualized proceeding, without any real debate.

The chief theological import of this council, wherein its lasting value lies, is the ruling out of Nestorian interpretations of Chalcedon and making space for more explicitly Cyrilline readings. The condemnation of Origen was also targeted at specific doctrines- e.g. pre-existence of souls, resurrection in spherical bodies, etc.- which, whatever one's thoughts about Origen in general, and whether he actually taught all of this, are not in danger of being revived in the Church at large. By all means condemn them. But insisting on the unquestionability of the anathemas of individuals and, more broadly, the historically determined idiosyncrasies of councils is not reasonable and in fact leads to the opposing of councils to one another, as in the case of the Letter of Ibas, the condemnation of which at Constantinople was perceived as a repudiation of Chalcedon.

It also leads us to problems in contemporary church life, such as the developing rapprochement of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Despite our substantial agreement on core matters of faith, some argue that the explicit condemnation of Dioscorus, Severus, etc. in EO councils precludes any unification short of complete capitulation of the other party. History matters and I am not arguing to ignore it or lay it aside, but this dogmatization of historical accidents is needlessly paralyzing and vexing.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 01:24:27 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2017, 01:45:27 PM »
It's fine to point out that most saints made theological errors. and all had certain sins.  It's not ok to play a virtue comparison game of "why him and not me".  That's not a good line of questioning and it's poor methodology.

Here I think you are overgeneralizing a pretty specific problem, relating to two specific men, Origen and the man who secured his condemnation, Justinian. Origen, whatever theological problems he had, has an incalculable influence on orthodox Christianity- exegetically, theologically, spiritually. Without Origen, the profound and penetrating allegorical reading of scripture might be lost to us. We would not have the Cappadocian fathers as we know them, no Dionysian writings, no Saint Maximus the Confessor. Most of the five-volume Philokalia- and Orthodox spirituality in general- could be considered an elaboration of Origen's spirituality via his disciple Evagrius.

A few centuries after his death he is condemned at an ecumenical council. What gives Justinian, or anyone, the right to do such a thing? Here a question of authority comes up. The Church has the authority to do this, we are told. It has been decided and who are you to question it? Too often in these discussions, we meet with this attitude that feigns childlike faith and obedience but is really the self-satisfied air of a grey bureaucrat who abides by all the regulations.

The question of the theological instability of Justinian is apropos as it speaks to the general instability of the time. Yes, through the vicissitudes of history, the Church miraculously preserves the right faith. But in doing so and in expressing that faith, are Her bishops somehow utterly immune to sprinkling chaff into the wheat of authoritative Orthodox pronouncements, chaff colored by political squabbles and historical misunderstandings? We reject the idea that a single bishop can have a charism of infallibility, so why do we tacitly confer such a charism on bishops assembled together? Conciliarity should not mean "hive-pope", especially when a council is so thoroughly dominated by a single imposing personality, who is, moreover, a secular ruler and not a bishop. Accounts of the 2nd council of Constantinople give the impression of an orchestrated, ritualized proceeding, without any real debate.

The chief theological import of this council, wherein its lasting value lies, is the ruling out of Nestorian interpretations of Chalcedon and making space for more explicitly Cyrilline readings. The condemnation of Origen was also targeted at specific doctrines- e.g. pre-existence of souls, resurrection in spherical bodies, etc.- which, whatever one's thoughts about Origen in general, and whether he actually taught all of this, are not in danger of being revived in the Church at large. By all means condemn them. But insisting on the unquestionability of the anathemas of individuals and, more broadly, the historically determined idiosyncrasies of councils is not reasonable and in fact leads to the opposing of councils to one another, as in the case of the Letter of Ibas, the condemnation of which at Constantinople was perceived as a repudiation of Chalcedon.

It also leads us to problems in contemporary church life, such as the developing rapprochement of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Despite our substantial agreement on core matters of faith, some argue that the explicit condemnation of Dioscorus, Severus, etc. in EO councils precludes any unification short of complete capitulation of the other party. History matters and I am not arguing to ignore it or lay it aside, but this dogmatization of historical accidents is needlessly paralyzing and vexing.

Agreed. And this is what I am pointing at. Just because one is a Christian does not mean one should stop thinking in general and stop being creative in Ones thinking. Which Origen was. He did never come up with his ideas in order to deceive people. So condemning HIM is just stupid. If one does so it is either out of malice, ignorance or fear.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 01:46:44 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,244
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2017, 02:10:29 PM »
It's fine to point out that most saints made theological errors. and all had certain sins.  It's not ok to play a virtue comparison game of "why him and not me".  That's not a good line of questioning and it's poor methodology.

Here I think you are overgeneralizing a pretty specific problem, relating to two specific men, Origen and the man who secured his condemnation, Justinian. Origen, whatever theological problems he had, has an incalculable influence on orthodox Christianity- exegetically, theologically, spiritually. Without Origen, the profound and penetrating allegorical reading of scripture might be lost to us. We would not have the Cappadocian fathers as we know them, no Dionysian writings, no Saint Maximus the Confessor. Most of the five-volume Philokalia- and Orthodox spirituality in general- could be considered an elaboration of Origen's spirituality via his disciple Evagrius.

A few centuries after his death he is condemned at an ecumenical council. What gives Justinian, or anyone, the right to do such a thing? Here a question of authority comes up. The Church has the authority to do this, we are told. It has been decided and who are you to question it? Too often in these discussions, we meet with this attitude that feigns childlike faith and obedience but is really the self-satisfied air of a grey bureaucrat who abides by all the regulations.

The question of the theological instability of Justinian is apropos as it speaks to the general instability of the time. Yes, through the vicissitudes of history, the Church miraculously preserves the right faith. But in doing so and in expressing that faith, are Her bishops somehow utterly immune to sprinkling chaff into the wheat of authoritative Orthodox pronouncements, chaff colored by political squabbles and historical misunderstandings? We reject the idea that a single bishop can have a charism of infallibility, so why do we tacitly confer such a charism on bishops assembled together? Conciliarity should not mean "hive-pope", especially when a council is so thoroughly dominated by a single imposing personality, who is, moreover, a secular ruler and not a bishop. Accounts of the 2nd council of Constantinople give the impression of an orchestrated, ritualized proceeding, without any real debate.

The chief theological import of this council, wherein its lasting value lies, is the ruling out of Nestorian interpretations of Chalcedon and making space for more explicitly Cyrilline readings. The condemnation of Origen was also targeted at specific doctrines- e.g. pre-existence of souls, resurrection in spherical bodies, etc.- which, whatever one's thoughts about Origen in general, and whether he actually taught all of this, are not in danger of being revived in the Church at large. By all means condemn them. But insisting on the unquestionability of the anathemas of individuals and, more broadly, the historically determined idiosyncrasies of councils is not reasonable and in fact leads to the opposing of councils to one another, as in the case of the Letter of Ibas, the condemnation of which at Constantinople was perceived as a repudiation of Chalcedon.

It also leads us to problems in contemporary church life, such as the developing rapprochement of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Despite our substantial agreement on core matters of faith, some argue that the explicit condemnation of Dioscorus, Severus, etc. in EO councils precludes any unification short of complete capitulation of the other party. History matters and I am not arguing to ignore it or lay it aside, but this dogmatization of historical accidents is needlessly paralyzing and vexing.

You're right.  Sorry if I wasn't specific.  That is a live question and apt comparison when looking specifically at theological issues and the history of Origen, etc. It's also fine to point out where a saint did incorrect things, or to let people know they, aren't infallible. It's also important to let people know that council's, etc have to be taken in context.  I agree with you 100% on all that.

I just thought I read that you, the OP, and perhaps the priest in question were going after virtue comparisons, and doubting of motives, which I think is very wrong.

 I also think there is limited use in saying St. John Chrysostom was theologically wrong on X, Y, Z where Origen was wrong on X.  It's something that should be done if need be, but I just see it as a limited point.

But you're right; the overall questions you are asking and those comparisons are live.  And you're right again that Origen is indispensable to the Christian intellectual tradition, and was normatively looked at as an uncontroversial great man for the centuries leading up to the council.  Whatever problems that lead to his approach can be compared with approaches gone awry at Antioch (a comparison I made earlier).  I was just trying to filter out two bad approaches that I thought I saw coming up from a few posts. 

Maybe I'm just bringing in my baggage for my distaste of Dave "double down" Bentley Hart's approach to things.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 02:23:26 PM by William T »

Offline Cognomen

  • Ungrateful Biped
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,131
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Wanderer, but Antioch and All the East
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #125 on: January 06, 2017, 09:24:46 PM »
Also, as Fr Aidan Kimel says, the fact that Justinian is a Saint of the church proves that apokastasis is true.

I feel that Fr. Aidan's dedication to the doctrine of universal salvation makes him a less than objective authority on the subject of Origen and the debated orthodoxy of his teachings.

Sure, Fr. Aidan would probably be the first to say that he's biased.

Indeed, but his level of bias is what concerns me. Moving on...

Quote
On Justinian though it's hard to deny he has a point. Justinian went to his grave promoting the heresy of aphthartodocetism and even exiled two sainted patriarchs (Sts Eutychius of Constantionople and Anastasius of Antioch) for opposing him on this. Yet he is a saint, and Origen is not?

I'll admit, that's a bit of a head-scratcher.

Quote
I guess a couple of broad questions here need to be fleshed out. Does every pronouncement by a recognized ecumenical council possess unquestionable authority for us? Obviously we do not invest such gatherings with infallibility before they occur, so why should we do so afterwards?  Is it possible to reject a theological opinion as heretical, while recognizing that someone may have been unjustly associated with it and condemned for it?

Thanks for fleshing these out, as these are at the crux of the matter, I suppose.

Does every pronouncement by a recognized ecumenical council possess unquestionable authority for us? I honestly don't know the answer to this. It certainly seems that some statements are unquestionably authoritative for us, such as the creed(s). But how do we determine which ones are and aren't?

Obviously we do not invest such gatherings with infallibility before they occur [only that they are "holy and great"...  ;)], so why should we do so afterwards? My understanding is that the Church collectively determines which councils are deemed ecumenical, and that their content holds great weight in defining and guiding our faith. I thought they were about as close as we came to having infallible pronouncements. But I am admittedly ignorant on which statements we should rightfully be able to challenge?

Is it possible to reject a theological opinion as heretical, while recognizing that someone may have been unjustly associated with it and condemned for it? Depending on our acceptance or interpretation of conciliar declarations, this certainly seems reasonable. I've heard persuasive arguments about Pelagius (and Nestorius) being misinterpreted and holding positions distinct from those condemned.

I really do like Raphacam's perspective on this topic; it seems, well, healthy. If Origen is indeed a saint, then he doesn't need our arguments and help. God won't place him in the wrong position due to misinterpretations. And we can still study his life and works for edification.

What concerns me, is the idea that some people seem so convinced of their position, that they come dangerously close to saying "if the Church is against my opinion on this, then the Church must somehow be mistaken."  Aside from the OP, it usually manifests itself in more subtle arguments, such as "these holy saints said or believed this..." or "the Church didn't really say that." Those may even be valid arguments, but I don't think they are anywhere close to being proven or widely accepted. Yet the OP has already deemed the omission of Origen as a recognized saint as a mistake of others, giving no thought to the possibility of him being mistaken or lacking proper context.

Too frequently, I find myself thinking "how stupid and/or stubborn were these people to not adequately work out linguistic or theological meanings and differences of understandings?" But there's also the possibility that we bring with us a certain hubristic bias towards our current "in hindsight" view on things. Just kind of typing out loud here now. But thanks for the posing those questions.   


If anything I have posted has been illuminating, please remember that I merely reflect the light of others...but also it's me.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #126 on: January 07, 2017, 03:13:32 AM »
I rest my case.

Once you're dead, you can't repent.

But apparently you can still become a heretic.

The Church has decided, and long ago. We should not presume we know better.

"The Church" accepted for something like three hundred years that he died in peace and in full communion with "the Church" after enduring sufferings for the sake of Christ, until "the Church" decided he was actually an anathematised heretic.  So how much time has to pass before "the Church's" made-up mind is final and irrevocable?   

Theodore and Nestorius were also condemned after there deaths at the same council.  Theodore was also a tutor and friend to many.

Nestorius had already been condemned at Ephesus.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Alkis

  • All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Constantinople
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #127 on: June 26, 2017, 06:46:32 PM »
Wow I found the correct thread to express my feelings. I have read recently about Origen. Today I read his commentary on John and De Principiis. I am really sad that Church condemned a man like him. A man that first used the term "God-man" for our Lord and the man that first wrote in his works the term "Theotokos". Do we know what the patriarchs say today about him? I really admired him.
For You keep my lamp burning; Lord my God You illumine my darkness. (Psalm 17:29)

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,965
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #128 on: June 26, 2017, 06:48:40 PM »
Wow I found the correct thread to express my feelings. I have read recently about Origen. Today I read his commentary on John and De Principiis. I am really sad that Church condemned a man like him. A man that first used the term "God-man" for our Lord and the man that first wrote in his works the term "Theotokos". Do we know what the patriarchs say today about him? I really admired him.

Well, yes, he's very widely admired. I suppose if it's fair a great sinner can come to be commemorated as a Saint, a great teacher can come to be pronounced Anathema. The ironies of our human nature and experience.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Alkis

  • All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Constantinople
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #129 on: June 26, 2017, 06:56:14 PM »
Wow I found the correct thread to express my feelings. I have read recently about Origen. Today I read his commentary on John and De Principiis. I am really sad that Church condemned a man like him. A man that first used the term "God-man" for our Lord and the man that first wrote in his works the term "Theotokos". Do we know what the patriarchs say today about him? I really admired him.

Well, yes, he's very widely admired. I suppose if it's fair a great sinner can come to be commemorated as a Saint, a great teacher can come to be pronounced Anathema. The ironies of our human nature and experience.

I also read about his allegorical interpretation of the Torah. He said that the two midwives in Egypt are the 2 Testaments, Moses in the basket is the Law who came to Pharaoh's daughter the Church... So GREAT! I hope that Origen will be discussed in other Synods.
For You keep my lamp burning; Lord my God You illumine my darkness. (Psalm 17:29)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,558
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Not calling Origen a saint is a mistake
« Reply #130 on: June 26, 2017, 08:15:28 PM »
Wow I found the correct thread to express my feelings. I have read recently about Origen. Today I read his commentary on John and De Principiis. I am really sad that Church condemned a man like him. A man that first used the term "God-man" for our Lord and the man that first wrote in his works the term "Theotokos". Do we know what the patriarchs say today about him? I really admired him.
You do right in admiring him! He is certainly one of the greatest christians in history. IMO he greatest church father along with Gregory of Nyssa(Of those I have read). He also seems to be one of few in christian history without sadistic leaning and tendencies. Origen, in his way of interpreting scripture, was an exceptional genius.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:16:45 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)