Guess the heresy...

[The Liturgist]

It's rough to be Origen about now.

Origen did not actually voluntarily castrate himself, although he was later accused from it, rather, what happened was the Romans arrested him and demanded that he offer a sacrifice to an idol or they would burn off his manhood. Rather than offering a sacrifice to the idol, he threw himself on the fire.

This makes him a Holy Confessor who is worthy of veneration, and not a heretic. The Oriental Orthodox never anathematized him, he was anathematized by Emperor Justinian in an act that caused a schism, the Three Chapters Controversy, which people then blame on the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, but this issue is quite complex. Furthermore he was regarded as a saint by the Cappadocians, who are rather important in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the thing he was anathematized for, belief in apokatastasis, was also believed in by St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was not anathematized.

The real problem was there was a faction of monks in the fourth century who were heretical who called themselves “Origenists” and in opposition to them, St Epiphanios of Cyprus, who I much admire, and others such as St. Jerome, attacked Origen and tried to blame Arianism on him, when really, Arius was most likely inspired by Paul of Samosata and Lucian of Antioch, who actually denied the deity of Christ. The best works of Origen, omitting some of his controversial speculations, were collected by the Cappadocians in a book called the Philocalia (with a “c”, the Philokalia with a “k” is something else, a collection of later Patristic material relating to prayer, hesychasm, monasticism and mystical theology assembled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and his friend St. Macarius of Corinth on Mount Athos in the 18th century).

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorry, although I don't always agree with fhansen's posts, I can't see anything abusive in the one you were replying to. Can you explain why you thought it was abusive? Thanks.

Reverend, correct me if I’m wrong, but most Baptists believe in original sin and that the only truly righteous human in this life at least is our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ? I’ve never seen a Baptist make any remark that looked like Donatism. Conversely, Baptists usually have a memorialist or Zwinglian sacramental theology in which the status of the minister doing the baptism would be irrelevant, am I right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid.

I'm just wondering. When concerned over our testimony, do we feel/believe we have to be blameless
in our conduct in order to have a valid ministry?

And do we therefore believe that those in ministry must also be perfect and virtually without sin?

And if we find that there is sin should we then exclude them from the church and ministry?

What then is our sliding scale as to what is appropriate as far as the type of sin committed that should lead to
ministerial forfeiture concerning all types of ministry; Particularly when all sin regardless of this scale leads to and
is worthy of death?

I think you're setting up an inference to a false dichotomy here. There's a good reason I'm not a leader of a church, and I know very well that I don't have the moral caliber, nor the patience, to stand in the spot-light. And when I walk into a church, the leader there better be intelligent, educated, and morally upright in a way that shows a long track record of integrity and ethical consistency. Or else, I'll spin around on my heels and make for the exit.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think you're setting up an inference to a false dichotomy here. There's a good reason I'm not a leader of a church, and I know very well that I don't have the moral caliber, nor the patience, to stand in the spot-light. And when I walk into a church, the leader there better be intelligent, educated, and morally upright in a way that shows a long track record of integrity and ethical consistency. Or else, I'll spin around on my heels and make for the exit.

But then lets for a moment consider that you came to faith in a congregation where the pastor was the moral equivalent of a snake in the grass. A totally unrepentant one at that. But you didn't know that. You were clueless that he had an adulterous affair and had the cuckholded husband killed among other things. So you ask to be baptized and he baptizes you. And only months later you figure out that he was a snake in the grass. Do you get baptized by somebody else?

Slight variation: You find out about the pastor's various sins from the pastor himself, who confesses it all and repents. Whoever is in charge allows him to come back to ministry after a period of time and with proper supervision. You left that congregation, but do you come back?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But then lets for a moment consider that you came to faith in a congregation where the pastor was the moral equivalent of a snake in the grass. A totally unrepentant one at that. But you didn't know that. You were clueless that he had an adulterous affair and had the cuckholded husband killed among other things. So you ask to be baptized and he baptizes you. And only months later you figure out that he was a snake in the grass. Do you get baptized by somebody else?

I probably would simply for the sake of my own aesthetic and spiritual sense of sagacity, but not because I'd be afraid that I hadn't accomplished the baptism in some "orthodox" sense.

As fate has it, I actually was baptized twice, essentially, although it was for reasons other than any those involving distrust or those doing the baptisms.

Slight variation: You find out about the pastor's various sins from the pastor himself, who confesses it all and repents. Whoever is in charge allows him to come back to ministry after a period of time and with proper supervision. You left that congregation, but do you come back?

That depends. If I have choices to go elsewhere and find a church with a leader and polity that's already doing a quality job, I wouldn't have a felt need to "go back," and there isn't really any scriptural mandate that I must choose the former church over another one.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I probably would simply for the sake of my own aesthetic and spiritual sense of sagacity, but not because I'd be afraid that I hadn't accomplished the baptism in some "orthodox" sense.

As fate has it, I actually was baptized twice, essentially, although it was for reasons other than any those involving distrust or those doing the baptisms.


That depends. If I have choices to go elsewhere and find a church with a leader and polity that's already doing a quality job, I wouldn't have a felt need to "go back," and there isn't really any scriptural mandate that I must choose the former church over another one.

The reason the issues surrounding the Donatists are relevant for today are first, about whether we can trust the ministers of sacraments to be 'worthy enough' and second, about whether we can justify separation.

The Donatists applied a 'high standard' for behavior that ultimately fails because NONE of us is really worthy to administer the sacraments. In a Donatist framework we should all be suspicious of every minister of the sacraments and wonder about the validity of everything we have received. The Catholic position, OTOH, seems like a very low standard, trusting the sacramental validity of even the sacraments of the worst of sinners. That because the validity is that of Christ and not of the worst of sinners.

The Donatists were separatists of distinction. It wasn't good enough that sinful ministers had repented. Continued separation was what they demanded. They couldn't even be in communion with those who were in communion with restored and repentant ministers. I'd say that part of Donatism is alive and well today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The reason the issues surrounding the Donatists are relevant for today are first, about whether we can trust the ministers of sacraments to be 'worthy enough' and second, about whether we can justify separation.

The Donatists applied a 'high standard' for behavior that ultimately fails because NONE of us is really worthy to administer the sacraments. In a Donatist framework we should all be suspicious of every minister of the sacraments and wonder about the validity of everything we have received. The Catholic position, OTOH, seems like a very low standard, trusting the sacramental validity of even the sacraments of the worst of sinners. That because the validity is that of Christ and not of the worst of sinners.

The Donatists were separatists of distinction. It wasn't good enough that sinful ministers had repented. Continued separation was what they demanded. They couldn't even be in communion with those who were in communion with restored and repentant ministers. I'd say that part of Donatism is alive and well today.

I'm fully aware of who the Donatists were, but I do lean in the direction of expecting something a bit "consistently higher" from those who lead in what are otherwise official Church capacities and who teach, preach, and baptize.

Do I expect perfection? Oh heck, no! But I do expect them to be above board to maintain and retain their positions. We now live in an age marked more by philosophies of pragmatic convenience and laissez-faire morality (or libertinism) than we are by biblical righteousness and fidelity, and being such, I don't think anyone who expects their ministers to be "above board" in ethics and basic doctrine are being Donatistic for asking this be the case, even where something as relatively simple as baptism is the focus. Would either of my two baptisms be insufficient if the ministers performing them weren't morally upright. No, but on a general level of expectancy, I wouldn't want to have been baptized by someone who is morally worse off than myself.

Here's a funny little anecdote. When I went to Christian college for a year back in the late 1980s, I had a class for "Christian Life" which generally had to do with sensibilities about discipleship, character building, and appropriate ethics for Christians. One of the books we had to read in that class impressed upon me the sensibility that was intended. The thing is, the book was by Bill Hybels................................... and the title, ironically enough, was, Who You Are When No One's Looking: Choosing Consistency, Resisting Compromise.

At least I didn't have to read books by Ravi Zacharias.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Would either of my two baptisms be insufficient if the ministers performing them weren't morally upright. No, but on a general level of expectancy, I wouldn't want to have been baptized by someone who is morally worse off than myself.

Exactly.

Here's a funny little anecdote. When I went to Christian college for a year back in the late 1980s, I had a class for "Christian Life" which generally had to do with sensibilities about discipleship, character building, and appropriate ethics for Christians. One of the books we had to read in that class impressed upon me the sensibility that was intended. The thing is, the book was by Bill Hybels................................... and the title, ironically enough, was, Who You Are When No One's Looking: Choosing Consistency, Resisting Compromise.

At least I didn't have to read books by Ravi Zacharias.

I take it both of these guys were rather morally compromised while pretending to be otherwise. It's all too common. isn't it?

 

[All Becomes New]

Sorry, although I don't always agree with fhansen's posts, I can't see anything abusive in the one you were replying to. Can you explain why you thought it was abusive? Thanks.

You don't think that a repeat offender who abuses children should not be able to be in ministry?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Exactly.

I take it both of these guys were rather morally compromised while pretending to be otherwise. It's all too common. isn't it?

Apparently so, sadly enough.

 

[The Liturgist]

I probably would simply for the sake of my own aesthetic and spiritual sense of sagacity, but not because I'd be afraid that I hadn't accomplished the baptism in some "orthodox" sense.

And the problem with that is that everyone is evil, so no matter who you turned to for baptism, you would run into the same problem.

Donatism was expressly rejected as a grave theological error by the early church because it presupposes that there are righteous clergy who haven’t sinned and fallen short of the glory of God who alone can confer the sacraments, and such clergy are unicorns.

Also by the way in the Nicene Creed we confess one baptism for the remission of sins, so if a baptism was correctly performed, it really shouldn’t be repeated. There are some debates on the correct form, but that’s a liturgical question. The real issue is that every single presbyter is morally defective and has done sinful things, without exception, and so if we say that their failings have an adverse impact on the salvation of their people, when they performed the sacraments correctly and did not teach heresy or cause a schism or otherwise make themselves false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, as it were, we preclude the possibility of anyone being saved. And indeed anyone being saved would be impossible except for Christ our True God - recall the parable of the rich young ruler. “Behold, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved,” said Christ our True God. The Apostles understandably were alarmed by the implications of this (since wealth is relative) and asked “Who then can be saved?” to which he replied “What is impossible with man, is possible with God.”

It is the same with sinful clergy as with the rich. We are saved by the grace of God, not by the person who baptizes us in His Name, and therefore the fact that the person baptizing us is, like everyone else, a sinner, is totally irrelevant.

 

[The Liturgist]

You don't think that a repeat offender who abuses children should not be able to be in ministry?

He didn’t say that. The point is that if we are baptized by a repeat offender, we don’t have to get rebaptized, because everyone has sinned in some manner, and there’s also the issue of original sin. That said anyone who abuses a child should be deposed and imprisoned. The early church also excluded from the Eucharist such people until they were in extremi (at the point of death), later reduced to 15 years by the penitential canons of St. John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early 7th century (which were not mandatory; all bishops had discretion to apply canons with akrivia (strictness) or oikonomia (laxity) depending on what they deemed necessary for someone’s salvation, and the canons of St. John the Faster were not binding.

Actually the phrase “canon law” is a bit of an oxymoron since the word canon literally means a straightedge, but it is neatly translated as “guideline.”

 

[The Liturgist]

I wouldn't want to have been baptized by someone who is morally worse off than myself.

That’s fair enough. That being said its very hard to know where people truly stand, morally, since most transgressions are known only to God and the transgressor. In the Orthodox Church we don’t even try to evaluate the morality of others, we simply declare ourselves to be the worst of sinners in our prayers. As far as I know I am the worst of sinners, since I don’t know in the case of any other person what mitigating circumstances might exist regarding their sin, for example, insanity or demonic possession, which would reduce or eliminate culpability. There are people who are probably more sinful than I am; but since I don’t know for sure, I’m going to accuse myself of being the worst sinner and throw myself to God’s mercy, which is infinite, or else I would be out of luck.

 

[All Becomes New]

He didn’t say that. The point is that if we are baptized by a repeat offender, we don’t have to get rebaptized, because everyone has sinned in some manner, and there’s also the issue of original sin. That said anyone who abuses a child should be deposed and imprisoned. The early church also excluded from the Eucharist such people until they were in extremi (at the point of death), later reduced to 15 years by the penitential canons of St. John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early 7th century (which were not mandatory; all bishops had discretion to apply canons with akrivia (strictness) or oikonomia (laxity) depending on what they deemed necessary for someone’s salvation, and the canons of St. John the Faster were not binding.

Actually the phrase “canon law” is a bit of an oxymoron since the word canon literally means a straightedge, but it is neatly translated as “guideline.”

All I was saying is that a person who abuses children should not be in ministry. I also agree that they should face legal consequences.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That’s fair enough. That being said its very hard to know where people truly stand, morally, since most transgressions are known only to God and the transgressor. In the Orthodox Church we don’t even try to evaluate the morality of others, we simply declare ourselves to be the worst of sinners in our prayers. As far as I know I am the worst of sinners, since I don’t know in the case of any other person what mitigating circumstances might exist regarding their sin, for example, insanity or demonic possession, which would reduce or eliminate culpability. There are people who are probably more sinful than I am; but since I don’t know for sure, I’m going to accuse myself of being the worst sinner and throw myself to God’s mercy, which is infinite, or else I would be out of luck.

One doesn't have to fall into the fallacy of assumption in order to have compassion and empathy for others or to know that, however more or less sinful I might be in comparison to those others, there's always One before whom I stand Who will always be My Superior.

So, maybe grab a small dose of self-esteem and do so knowing that spiritual sobriety runs both ways: one doesn't have to assume he's the worst when he knows there really are scoundrels in the world who are indeed worse. I don't think Paul the Apostle would have had any knee-jerk reaction to what I'm suggesting here; those of us in the Philosophically Free Church----a term I've just now made-up----have no qualms about evaluating the ethical assumptions of either ourselves or of others as needed. Being that I'm also free of having to put on the Original Sin dunce cap that everyone has been wearing since St. Augustine, I will evaluate others as needed, mainly to protect myself, and if needed, my family.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the problem with that is that everyone is evil, so no matter who you turned to for baptism, you would run into the same problem.

Donatism was expressly rejected as a grave theological error by the early church because it presupposes that there are righteous clergy who haven’t sinned and fallen short of the glory of God who alone can confer the sacraments, and such clergy are unicorns.

Well, they were wrong, weren't they?

Also by the way in the Nicene Creed we confess one baptism for the remission of sins, so if a baptism was correctly performed, it really shouldn’t be repeated. There are some debates on the correct form, but that’s a liturgical question. The real issue is that every single presbyter is morally defective and has done sinful things, without exception, and so if we say that their failings have an adverse impact on the salvation of their people, when they performed the sacraments correctly and did not teach heresy or cause a schism or otherwise make themselves false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, as it were, we preclude the possibility of anyone being saved. And indeed anyone being saved would be impossible except for Christ our True God - recall the parable of the rich young ruler. “Behold, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved,” said Christ our True God. The Apostles understandably were alarmed by the implications of this (since wealth is relative) and asked “Who then can be saved?” to which he replied “What is impossible with man, is possible with God.”

It is the same with sinful clergy as with the rich. We are saved by the grace of God, not by the person who baptizes us in His Name, and therefore the fact that the person baptizing us is, like everyone else, a sinner, is totally irrelevant.

I don't assume everyone is evil in the most robust sense of the term. I do assume that Church Leaders will be above board and be able to maintain that status in order to receive their next paycheck portion from the offering plate.

 

[All Becomes New]

Origen did not actually voluntarily castrate himself, although he was later accused from it, rather, what happened was the Romans arrested him and demanded that he offer a sacrifice to an idol or they would burn off his manhood. Rather than offering a sacrifice to the idol, he threw himself on the fire.

This makes him a Holy Confessor who is worthy of veneration, and not a heretic. The Oriental Orthodox never anathematized him, he was anathematized by Emperor Justinian in an act that caused a schism, the Three Chapters Controversy, which people then blame on the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, but this issue is quite complex. Furthermore he was regarded as a saint by the Cappadocians, who are rather important in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the thing he was anathematized for, belief in apokatastasis, was also believed in by St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was not anathematized.

The real problem was there was a faction of monks in the fourth century who were heretical who called themselves “Origenists” and in opposition to them, St Epiphanios of Cyprus, who I much admire, and others such as St. Jerome, attacked Origen and tried to blame Arianism on him, when really, Arius was most likely inspired by Paul of Samosata and Lucian of Antioch, who actually denied the deity of Christ. The best works of Origen, omitting some of his controversial speculations, were collected by the Cappadocians in a book called the Philocalia (with a “c”, the Philokalia with a “k” is something else, a collection of later Patristic material relating to prayer, hesychasm, monasticism and mystical theology assembled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and his friend St. Macarius of Corinth on Mount Athos in the 18th century).

Not what I heard. I heard he castrated himself so he could be celibate.

 

[Michie]

Not what I heard. I heard he castrated himself so he could be celibate.

Eusebius also alleged that Origen, as a young man, castrated himself so as to work freely in instructing female catechumens; but this was not the only story told by the malicious about his extraordinary chastity, and thus it may merely have been hostile gossip.

Origen | Early Christian Theologian & Scholar | Britannica

Origen was the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church. His greatest work is the Hexapla, which is a synopsis of six versions of the Old Testament. Origen was born of pagan parents, according to the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry, but of Christian parents,

www.britannica.com

According to Eusebius, Demetrius published the allegation that Origen had secretly castrated himself, a capital offense under Roman law at the time and one which would have made Origen's ordination invalid, since eunuchs were forbidden from becoming priests.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not what I heard. I heard he castrated himself so he could be celibate.

Indeed, that was rumored, but as I explained, it was untrue and a smear against Origen, a distortion of what actually happened to him in the Diocletian Persecution. Origen really ought to be venerated as a saint, and at least the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians never anathematized him. I have a lovely Byzantine-style icon of him written (we say icons are written and not painted) by an Episcopalian iconographer.

 

[The Liturgist]

Eusebius also alleged that Origen, as a young man, castrated himself so as to work freely in instructing female catechumens; but this was not the only story told by the malicious about his extraordinary chastity, and thus it may merely have been hostile gossip.

Origen | Early Christian Theologian & Scholar | Britannica

Origen was the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church. His greatest work is the Hexapla, which is a synopsis of six versions of the Old Testament. Origen was born of pagan parents, according to the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry, but of Christian parents,

www.britannica.com

According to Eusebius, Demetrius published the allegation that Origen had secretly castrated himself, a capital offense under Roman law at the time and one which would have made Origen's ordination invalid, since eunuchs were forbidden from becoming priests.

Indeed, canon 1 of Nicaea was not a new innovation - the idea that those who castrate themselves voluntarily without medical necessity are disqualified from ordination was reflected in the canons of the council but did not originate there. Nicaea was not innovative but conservative.

Indeed the Roman legates did suggest introducing Roman-style clerical celibacy throughout the church, but the Greek majority of bishops voted that down (although the bishops themselves were predominantly unmarried celibates). As it is now the Catholic church has married presbyters in some of its rites (the Eastern and Anglican Rites), and married Permanent Deacons in all of them.