Is Origen A Church Father?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 April 2010 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1272219408' post='2099773']
For many reasons: (1) his subordinationist Triadology; (2) his belief in the pre-existence of human souls; (3) his belief that the fall is a cycle that recurs eternally; (4) his disdain for the human body, which was evidenced by the self-mutilation of his own body; (5) his view that existence in the body is a punishment of the soul for committing a pre-earthly sin; (6) his doctrine that the damned will be released from hell and be saved; (7) his belief that demons are both angels and the souls of evil men; (8) his view that Christ's resurrected body was not the same body that He took from the Theotokos, but an ethereal body composed of a spiritual form (i.e., a type of Docetism); (9) his belief that the body of Christ, which He used only as a shell during His earthly ministry, has been destroyed, and that the bodies of the saints will also be destroyed at the final judgment, is - like all of the other propositions listed here - condemned as heretical.
[/quote]
Hm, yea. That seems pretty heretical to me.

For some reason I'd heard it said that Origen himself was more or less orthodox, but it was only his followers after his death that took his teachings too far, thus ending up with Origenism, which Origen himself didn't advocate. Is there any truth to that?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1272219967' post='2099782']
Hm, yea. That seems pretty heretical to me.

For some reason I'd heard it said that Origen himself was more or less orthodox, but it was only his followers after his death that took his teachings too far, thus ending up with Origenism, which Origen himself didn't advocate. Is there any truth to that?
[/quote]
The problem with that theory - as popular as it is today - is that Origen's followers based their doctrines upon his writings. In other words, they did not make them up out of thin air.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 April 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1272220101' post='2099785']
The problem with that theory - as popular as it is today - is that Origen's followers based their doctrines upon his writings. In other words, they did not make them up out of thin air.
[/quote]
Is it possible that they misinterpreted his teachings, or went far beyond what Origen intended, or is there sufficient evidence from Origen's writings in isolation that he himself advocated heretical views?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1272220719' post='2099788']
Is it possible that they misinterpreted his teachings, or went far beyond what Origen intended, or is there sufficient evidence from Origen's writings in isolation that he himself advocated heretical views?
[/quote]
Since the condemnations of Origen came from the God-bearing Fathers I do not believe that this is the case. Origen was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and I will stand with the conciliar judgment of the Church Fathers rather than against it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 April 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1272220923' post='2099789']
Since the condemnations of Origen came from the God-bearing Fathers I do not believe that this is the case. Origen was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and I will stand with the conciliar judgment of the Church Fathers rather than against it.
[/quote]
Sounds good to me.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Origen is bedder then most other fathers in many respects. Props to him.

[Ephrem Augustine]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 April 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1272154470' post='2099434']
I never said that everything written by the two men is heretical. Nevertheless, a heretic cannot be a Church Father, because the Holy Fathers are commemorated in the liturgy, and no heretic is ever commemorated liturgically.
[/quote]

No this is a good point, because I don't think anybody here wanted to commemorate Apostates or Heretics in the Liturgy, maybe the title is too precious to be giving out to those who fell away. But it essentially sounds like people are arguing two sets of criteria for what or who a Church Father is.
1. Any man who has advanced or solidified our theological doctrine
OR:
2. Any holy saintly man who has advanced or solidified our theological doctrine

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 April 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1272154590' post='2099435']
Good thing no one has to agree with the New Advent website.

I do not consider Arios, Nestorios, Origen, Tertullian, Eutyches, Dioscorus, et al., to be Church Fathers. Heretics cannot be Fathers of the Church.
[/quote]

I wonder about Nestorius nowadays:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html"]Common Christological Declaration of the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East[/url]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 April 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1272220101' post='2099785']
The problem with that theory - as popular as it is today - is that Origen's followers based their doctrines upon his writings. In other words, they did not make them up out of thin air.
[/quote]

True, I just wanted to second that, I heard too much out of the contrary in here it needed clarifying.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ephrem Augustine' date='25 April 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1272223482' post='2099822']
I wonder about Nestorius nowadays:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html"]Common Christological Declaration of the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East[/url][/quote]
The common Christological agreement between the Roman Church and the Nestorian Church does not change the fact that Nestorios' original theological propositions were, and are, heretical. Thus, anyone who asserts that Christ is two [i]hypostaseis[/i] and two natures in one [i]prosopon[/i] would still fall under the condemnations of the councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople II.

The conciliar teaching remains unaffected by side agreements between [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, and that teaching affirms that Christ is one divine [i]prosopon[/i] and one [i]hypostasis[/i] in two natures.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Apotheoun

[sistersintigo]

My question would be: how important is "Contra Celsum"? People can grouse all they want about Origen's flights, into outer space, concerning the Gospel of John -- I feel quite earthbound if I try to read those writings, they are WAY over my head. But Origen's defense of Christianity in "Contra Celsum", by most accounts, is irreplaceable, the Church cannot let it go, no matter how off the wall Origen was.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='sistersintigo' date='05 May 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1273074184' post='2105382']
My question would be: how important is "Contra Celsum"? People can grouse all they want about Origen's flights, into outer space, concerning the Gospel of John -- I feel quite earthbound if I try to read those writings, they are WAY over my head. But Origen's defense of Christianity in "Contra Celsum", by most accounts, is irreplaceable, the Church cannot let it go, no matter how off the wall Origen was.
[/quote]
Again - as I said earlier - simply writing a wonderful treatise does not make a man a Church Father. To be a Church Father the individual must be commemorated as such by the Church in her liturgical rites, and Origen is not only not commemorated as a God-bearing Father, but he has been condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council. Nevertheless, his writings are historically important, but it would be unwise to assume any of his doctrinal positions as one's own, because the vast majority of what he taught (e.g., on Triadology and Christology, the nature of man and the human soul, on apokatastasis, etc.) is contrary to revealed truth and the rule of faith.

[Formosus]

I wouldn't call Origen a church father, but I do not discount the importance of his writings to subsequent theology. As one who enjoys the classics, I do appreciate his attempt at synthesis between hellenistic thought and christianity, but ultimately he allowed his worldly hellenism to drive him towards accepting heretical ideas (like the pre-existence of souls). Origen has some good teachings, you just have to sift through his heretical writings to get to it.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 April 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1272219408' post='2099773']
For many reasons: [Origen's] belief is - like all of the other propositions listed here - condemned as heretical.
[/quote]

Sure...[i]now[/i] it is. Origen was a *very* early theologian, so if his speculation crossed certain boundaries [i]before those boundaries were established[/i], I'm not sure I'd call him a heretic. Also, I think you are discounting the contributions of his followers too much. People can read St. John of the Cross and write heresy, claiming it came from him. They'd be wrong, but that doesn't mean this doesn't happen all the time. St. John of the Cross is still a Doctor of the Church, even if his writings are misused.

I agree that one should not mutilate the body. But one could quite easily say that his error came in taking Jesus at his word in Matthew 19:12:

[quote]For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. [/quote]

I realize the Church has long since forbidden his reaction to these words, but it is not as though he disobeyed the Church in the matter. Pope John Paul II speaks of interpretations of this verse in his talks on the Theology of the Body, and he draws attention to how radical Christ's concept of voluntary continence was to his Jewish listeners. [url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TB73.HTM]Audience 73[/url]

I do not consider Origen to be a saint nor a Church Father, but I would not label him a heretic, either. He is an early theologian, one who was very important to the early Church, and someone who espoused some heretical ideas...but unwittingly, as the Church had yet to declare them heresies. If a heretic is one who steps outside the bounds set by the Church, then Origen never did so (not even in his speculations). If a heretic is someone who is wrong, then...yes, his work contains some errors.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='19 May 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1274314028' post='2113858']
Sure...[i]now[/i] it is. Origen was a *very* early theologian, so if his speculation crossed certain boundaries [i]before those boundaries were established[/i], I'm not sure I'd call him a heretic.
[/quote]
Since much of his theological speculation has been condemned as heresy, and he himself has been anathematized at the 5th ecumenical council, he cannot be commemorated in the Byzantine Church as a Father. Moreover, in the prayers of the Byzantine liturgy he is explicitly condemned as a heretic, so I cannot - as a Byzantine Christian - ever confess that he is a Church Father, for to do so would involve my acting in a manner contrary to the law of prayer of my [i]sui juris[/i] Church, and in the process I would fall under the same anathemas.

[MithLuin]

As I've pointed out, I don't consider him to be a Church Father either. But I'm not going to call him a heretic.

St. Anselm didn't argue (for instance) the immaculate conception of Mary. Had he been born in this century and made the arguments he did in [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i] he no doubt would have been reprimanded by the Church. But as he lived in the 11th century, he is considered a saint whose philosophy was greatly admired. His speculations were [i]within the boundaries[/i] established by the Church of his time.

Origen lived at a time when their were few boundaries, and was judged a Christian, not a heretic, by the Church in his time. Later, as the faith was more rigorously defined, ideas that had been attributed to him had to be condemned, certainly.

But that doesn't make him a heretic, even if someone espousing the same heretical idea today [i]would[/i] be a heretic.

Saavy?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='22 May 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1274567029' post='2115531']
As I've pointed out, I don't consider him to be a Church Father either. But I'm not going to call him a heretic.
[/quote]
You do not have to call him a heretic, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized him as a heretic, and that is good enough for me.