The True Church? I'm Disillusioned.

[buzuxi02]

Origen was condemned at different points in his own time by synods in Alexandria and Rome. In his own Alexandrian see, HH St. Demetrios the Vinedresser and HH St. Heraclas both stood against him, perhaps for different reasons than later EO synods did. (The article on his history by RPC Hanson in the Coptic Encyclopedia suggests he was ordained a presbyter while in Palestine without the consultation of his own bishop, and despite his infamous self-mutilation.)

The condemnation at the 5th council just meant that Constantinople was the last to officially condemn Origen. By then Origenism in Asia Minor and Pontos further mutated in its speculation. But by the 4th century Alexandria,Jerusalem and I'm pretty sure Antioch had condemned him . Rome went so far that the pope ordered none of his writings to ever be translated into Latin. Ruffinus and Jerome (if I remember correctly) had to cease translating. Origen's writings in the west are very recent.

 

[Light of the East]

not only that, but he was both excommunicated and condemned. so folks had problems with him long before the 5th Council.

St Vincent of Lerins says that even though Origen's followers exaggerated his errors, that nonetheless his heresy lies with him.

Please offer verification for this in regards to both the excommunication and the reason he was excommunicated. Origen had some very odd beliefs regarding the pre-existence of the soul, and I do believe it was these strange ideas which brought him condemnation.

 

[Light of the East]

Thank you so much for your replies! I have read them all and am taking them to heart. I really do appreciate the time taken by each of you to read and respond to this thread. Honestly, I believe I would like to remain in the Orthodox Church, because it IS true that, if I were to join a different church, I would just encounter a different set of issues and frustrations. I do really love a lot about Orthodoxy (I love more about Orthodoxy than I love about any other church), and there's a good chance it's the best church for me for the rest of my life. Yet I would still love some feedback about the following:

I have been a closet Universalist (Universal Reconciliation, that is, not Unitarian Universalism), most of my life, so there is nothing new there for me. I have been reading books on the issue in the last year and feeling convinced by it both Scripturally and philosophically. Therefore, I'm realizing my need to be more open about it with some people. I actually DO believe in hell and judgement but believe they are rehabilitative and not eternal. I am curious how well I can fit into my church (or any Orthodox church) if I am more open with some people about this. It's discouraging to feel like I can't talk about it at church for fear of scandalizing certain others. Although I am not the only Universalist at my church.

As for closed communion, what bothers me most is our prohibition from taking communion at other churches. It's considered a sin I have to bring to confession. Given that I believe in Universal Reconciliation, and I also believe that LGBTQ people are misunderstood, misjudged, and mistreated by all traditional churches, I feel like taking a "breather" and visiting some other churches, just out of curiosity and to help me process through this. But then, if I do this, that puts me out of communion with the Orthodox Church until I can, in all sincerely, repent of my attendance at other churches and return to the Orthodox sacraments of confession and communion.

All this brings up for me a deep curiosity about how much of my church's teaching, worship, prayers, and rituals are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and how much is just manmade. Or is it a combination of both? I have wanted an answer to this question for so many years. I just don't understand how to verify this. What's the harm in revisiting our beliefs and practices and seeing if the Holy Spirit want to change anything?

I do have an appointment to speak with my priest. Before I get there, though, I appreciate the opportunity to run my thoughts by others, especially other Orthodox Christians, and ask you for your feedback. If anyone has any more detailed thoughts to share, especially about my last questions about the church, I appreciate hearing them.

Thanks again,

Rayanne

Have you read David Bentley Hart's new book THAT ALL SHALL BE SAVED? While many have condemned it, no one has really answered the philosophical and moral questions regarding creatio ex nihilo, the charaacter of God, and the scriptural phrases that speak of the restoration of all things.

Saying the book is "garbage" is not a debate-winning answer either.

 

[Light of the East]

There are far, far more scriptural, philosophical, and moral problems with the idea of an eternal hell than there are with the idea of a restorative and just punishment for sin.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Please offer verification for this in regards to both the excommunication and the reason he was excommunicated. Origen had some very odd beliefs regarding the pre-existence of the soul, and I do believe it was these strange ideas which brought him condemnation.

I think it was already mentioned. he bishop jumped.

 

[Light of the East]

As for the poll attached to the OP .... yes, one can be Orthodox and a Universalist. St. Isaac of Syria was. So were a number of other saints.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Have you read David Bentley Hart's new book THAT ALL SHALL BE SAVED? While many have condemned it, no one has really answered the philosophical and moral questions regarding creatio ex nihilo, the charaacter of God, and the scriptural phrases that speak of the restoration of all things.

Saying the book is "garbage" is not a debate-winning answer either.

DBH gets wrong what the restoration of all things means, for the umpteenth time.

 

[Light of the East]

I think it was already mentioned. he bishop jumped.

Bishop jumped???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a new one to me. I guess you mean he went from one bishop to another and thus got excommunicated? What does that have to do with Apokatastasis?

 

[ArmyMatt]

As for the poll attached to the OP .... yes, one can be Orthodox and a Universalist. St. Isaac of Syria was. So were a number of other saints.

no, he was Orthodox in spite of that. and I don't think he was as universalist as you claim

 

[Light of the East]

DBH gets wrong what the restoration of all things means, for the umpteenth time.

And for the umpteenth time, YOU haven't written a dissertation by which you prove that. This is the problem with all his critics. They either take to task his "mean-spiritedness" or they complain about something else, but they have not as of yet written any sort of succinct and to the point (and point by point) response to his book.

None.

 

[Light of the East]

no, he was Orthodox in spite of that. and I don't think he was as universalist as you claim

A.) Nonetheless, he was Orthodox.

B.) I love and respect you as a priest, and honor your ordination, but now you are just being silly. One cannot read what he and other Early Fathers wrote (names escape me right now) without seeing that he was thoroughly Universalist. His belief is the same as that of Orthodoxy, that the "fires of hell" means the scourging of God's love which will torment the wicked. The only difference is that he taught, as do all those who accept God's loving chastisement (rather than the revenge of an angry deity) that it will restore and have an end point. I think you are trying to whitewash this by twisting words and making them say what they don't mean.

Let me just toss one question at you to answer (if I can form the question correctly). Justice has a telos in mind. Because there is some end in sight, usually the correction of a wrong (such as the repayment given to thieves in the OT law) and hopefully the restoration of both the moral order and the person who offended, if punishment never ends, then how is that justice? Explain to me please how it is

A.) Just of God to punish in a disproportionate manner, i.e, the punishment must fit the offense when He Himself gave the moral order to punishment of lex talionis?
B.) How it is justice when the punishment never comes to a telos?

Father, do you really study this issue (I mean to dig in, read over, ponder, and toss about in your mind) or do you merely see us making statements and roll your eyes in dismay because this doesn't fit (according to your understanding) what is the Orthodox faith? How much time have you given to not only reading Hart's book (not just once, but more than once so you are sure you capture everything) but to writing out a point by point refutation. Your whole response at this point is summed up in two positions

A.) Orthodox doesn't teach this and stands against it (Which Hart and others firmly dispute)
B.) Constantinople II condemned it - case closed (No. Case still open if this was a Robber's Council)

Again, I say this with respect to you and for you, but unless I get a serious answer to my prayers in which God makes it deeply clear to me that this is in error, you and I are not going to agree on this.

God is love and only Apokatastasis is in line with the character of love and how it relates to all around it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Bishop jumped???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a new one to me. I guess you mean he went from one bishop to another and thus got excommunicated? What does that have to do with Apokatastasis?

you asked why he was excommunicated. that's why he was excommunicated.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And for the umpteenth time, YOU haven't written a dissertation by which you prove that. This is the problem with all his critics. They either take to task his "mean-spiritedness" or they complain about something else, but they have not as of yet written any sort of succinct and to the point (and point by point) response to his book.

None.

yeah, folks have. I know I have in the past. you just don't listen. St Maximos gets clear about how universalism is properly understood. which I know I have told you in the past.

 

[BNR32FAN]

just offer two thoughts.

the reason we can't take communion with other Christian confessions is because to take communion is to say you are one in faith with them, and we aren't.

as far as universalism, it's been condemned at the 5th Ecumenical council. it also makes no sense when Christ says it would have been better for Judas to never have been born.

I think Luke 12:10 and Matthew 7:21 are also excellent points against universalism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A.) Nonetheless, he was Orthodox.

B.) I love and respect you as a priest, and honor your ordination, but now you are just being silly. One cannot read what he and other Early Fathers wrote (names escape me right now) without seeing that he was thoroughly Universalist. His belief is the same as that of Orthodoxy, that the "fires of hell" means the scourging of God's love which will torment the wicked. The only difference is that he taught, as do all those who accept God's loving chastisement (rather than the revenge of an angry deity) that it will restore and have an end point. I think you are trying to whitewash this by twisting words and making them say what they don't mean.

Let me just toss one question at you to answer (if I can form the question correctly). Justice has a telos in mind. Because there is some end in sight, usually the correction of a wrong (such as the repayment given to thieves in the OT law) and hopefully the restoration of both the moral order and the person who offended, if punishment never ends, then how is that justice? Explain to me please how it is

A.) Just of God to punish in a disproportionate manner, i.e, the punishment must fit the offense when He Himself gave the moral order to punishment of lex talionis?
B.) How it is justice when the punishment never comes to a telos?

Father, do you really study this issue (I mean to dig in, read over, ponder, and toss about in your mind) or do you merely see us making statements and roll your eyes in dismay because this doesn't fit (according to your understanding) what is the Orthodox faith? How much time have you given to not only reading Hart's book (not just once, but more than once so you are sure you capture everything) but to writing out a point by point refutation. Your whole response at this point is summed up in two positions

A.) Orthodox doesn't teach this and stands against it (Which Hart and others firmly dispute)
B.) Constantinople II condemned it - case closed (No. Case still open if this was a Robber's Council)

Again, I say this with respect to you and for you, but unless I get a serious answer to my prayers in which God makes it deeply clear to me that this is in error, you and I are not going to agree on this.

God is love and only Apokatastasis is in line with the character of love and how it relates to all around it.

except the sinner does the punishing, not God. again, old hat. the telos is Christ. judgment and wrath are aspects of love, when confronting the sinner. and since after the Last Judgment, we are after successive, fallen time, there is no way to repent. so God pours out His love on the sinner just like on the saint. and again, we have been through this before.

and yes, I have read Hart's stuff and not just glossed over him. that's how I know some of his errors.

and the 5th Council can't be a robber Council since it's affirmed by 6th, Quinesext, and the 7th.

and again, you are wrongly defining what love is.

and I am not looking to agree with you. DBH isn't taken seriously within Orthodoxy, so if he is your litmus test, then we aren't going to agree.

 

[rusmeister]

I think there is a tendency on both sides to be quickly dismissive of the other, though I agree in general with the conclusions of Fr Matt. If it's any help, we are absolutely RIGHT to hope and desire that all should be saved; we are only forbidden to count on it, and to seriously accept that some people might really choose not to be saved.

 

[rusmeister]

Thank you so much for your replies! I have read them all and am taking them to heart. I really do appreciate the time taken by each of you to read and respond to this thread. Honestly, I believe I would like to remain in the Orthodox Church, because it IS true that, if I were to join a different church, I would just encounter a different set of issues and frustrations. I do really love a lot about Orthodoxy (I love more about Orthodoxy than I love about any other church), and there's a good chance it's the best church for me for the rest of my life. Yet I would still love some feedback about the following:

I have been a closet Universalist (Universal Reconciliation, that is, not Unitarian Universalism), most of my life, so there is nothing new there for me. I have been reading books on the issue in the last year and feeling convinced by it both Scripturally and philosophically. Therefore, I'm realizing my need to be more open about it with some people. I actually DO believe in hell and judgement but believe they are rehabilitative and not eternal. I am curious how well I can fit into my church (or any Orthodox church) if I am more open with some people about this. It's discouraging to feel like I can't talk about it at church for fear of scandalizing certain others. Although I am not the only Universalist at my church.

As for closed communion, what bothers me most is our prohibition from taking communion at other churches. It's considered a sin I have to bring to confession. Given that I believe in Universal Reconciliation, and I also believe that LGBTQ people are misunderstood, misjudged, and mistreated by all traditional churches, I feel like taking a "breather" and visiting some other churches, just out of curiosity and to help me process through this. But then, if I do this, that puts me out of communion with the Orthodox Church until I can, in all sincerely, repent of my attendance at other churches and return to the Orthodox sacraments of confession and communion.

All this brings up for me a deep curiosity about how much of my church's teaching, worship, prayers, and rituals are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and how much is just manmade. Or is it a combination of both? I have wanted an answer to this question for so many years. I just don't understand how to verify this. What's the harm in revisiting our beliefs and practices and seeing if the Holy Spirit want to change anything?

I do have an appointment to speak with my priest. Before I get there, though, I appreciate the opportunity to run my thoughts by others, especially other Orthodox Christians, and ask you for your feedback. If anyone has any more detailed thoughts to share, especially about my last questions about the church, I appreciate hearing them.

Thanks again,

Rayanne

As the local language guy (specialist in languages and how they work), I would challenge you to think about the terms you use, and think about how old they are, and to what extent they express truth. I have in mind specifically your comment about "LGBTQ people". I would submit to you that there is no such thing; that the people the term attempts to describe are just "people", like you and me, experiencing passions, as we do, that they may or may not struggle with or recognize as passions (most don't recognize their desires as a passion, in all of my experience). We accept ALL people, no matter what passion they experience, but we must grant that we are called to struggle AGAINST our passions, and not affirm them as good or "not-passion". In that light, the acronym "LGBTQ" is fundamentally in error, as it assumes that what the people experience is a necessary, natural, and therefore good part of their ontology, whereas we would say that they, like, we, are fallen, and experience wrong desires, desires bent from their true purpose and intent.

It IS true that many Orthodox accept this modern terminology, which never existed in our history, being literally invented hardly a quarter of a century ago, and so they DO, in one way or another, misunderstand the nature of the problem these people face. Naturally, we oppose mistreatment of ANYONE, but it would be proper treatment to treat them, in a spirit of love, as suffering from a passion that they need to take up their own struggle against.

 

[Not David]

"It's a terrible thing to fall in the hands of the living God"

 

[Lukaris]

John 5:24-30 is read in our funeral service in which the Lord says the good (anyone) will be saved & the evil (anyone) will be condemned. No one is automatically condemned or saved but there is no universalism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think there is a tendency on both sides to be quickly dismissive of the other, though I agree in general with the conclusions of Fr Matt. If it's any help, we are absolutely RIGHT to hope and desire that all should be saved; we are only forbidden to count on it, and to seriously accept that some people might really choose not to be saved.

exactly. hoping that all will be saved and praying for it is something we can/should do.

however, to say that we know all will be saved is, according to St Paisios, a lie of the devil.